This article first appeared in the Viewpoint column of the CHRISTIAN RESEARCH JOURNAL, volume 34, number 02 (2011). For further information or to subscribe to the CHRISTIAN RESEARCH JOURNAL go to: http://www.equip.org/christian-research-journal/

In AD 49, the two major wings of the fledgling Christian faith met at Jerusalem to decide the fate of the church. The Pharisaic party claimed, “It is necessary to circumcise [Gentile converts] and to command them to keep the law of Moses” (Acts 15:5).1 However, it was deemed that grace ruled against any need to become Jewish and to follow the law. Nevertheless, many questions remained. The church was under the New, and not the Old, Covenant (Heb. 8:13). Did this new reality require a separation from the Old? Does it also require the church to distance itself from the celebration of the Jewish holidays, namely the Passover? Now that many churches are celebrating “Christ-in-the-Passover,” this question is re-emerging.

Clearly, an Absolute Separation Isn’t Warranted.

Jesus’ disciples spent a lot of time in the Temple. After His ascension, they “were continually in the temple praising and blessing God” (Luke 24:53). They were there daily and then would return to their homes to break bread together (Acts 2:46). Peter and John continued this practice (Acts 3:1), going to the temple on a daily basis to preach (Acts 5:42). An angel saw no problem in directing the apostles to go to the temple to preach (Acts 5:20). From this, it doesn’t seem that the temple was now off-limits.

The Church Has Freedom Regarding Contact with Things Pertaining to the Mosaic Covenant.

“Do you not yet understand that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and is eliminated? But those things which proceed out of the mouth come from the heart, and they defile a man” (Matt. 15:17–18).2

According to Jesus, food (or whatever things that are external) would no longer defile the believer. This was the lesson that Peter had learned through his vision and the voice that instructed him to eat nonkosher foods (Acts 10:9–16). This principle also extended to eating foods offered to idols: “Eat anything sold in the meat market without raising questions of conscience….If some unbeliever invites you to a meal and you want to go, eat whatever is put before you without raising questions of conscience” (1 Cor. 10:25–27).

Paul taught that this liberty even extended to eating such foods at a pagan temple, as long as it didn’t entice the brethren to do something that would violate their conscience (1 Cor. 8:4–13; Rom. 14:23). Clearly, we are no longer defiled by contact with any material objects: “To the pure all things are pure” (Titus 1:15). We are even free regarding the days we choose for worship (Col. 2:16–17; Rom. 14:5–6). More significantly, the New Testament always draws our attention back to the Old through quotations and allusions. If we can study the Old, why can’t we Christologically (with Christ in view) enact the Old?

However, There Are Limits to Our Freedom in Christ.

If we do have this freedom, why does the Spirit censure those who teach believers “to eat things sacrificed to idols” (Rev. 2:14; also 2:20)? There is a big difference between purposely seeking out foods offered to idols for spiritual benefit and mere contact with them. Although Paul taught that the idol is nothing and even the sacrifice to the idol is nothing, the participation in these rituals is definitely something:

“Therefore, my beloved, flee from idolatry….The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion [koinonia] of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion [koinonia] of the body of Christ?…Observe Israel after the flesh: Are not those who eat of the sacrifices partakers [koinonos] of the altar? What am I saying then? That an idol is anything, or what is offered to idols is anything? Rather, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice they sacrifice to demons and not to God, and I do not want you to have fellowship [koinonos] with demons. You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons; you cannot partake [metecho] of the Lord’s table and of the table of demons. Or do we provoke the Lord to jealousy?”(1 Cor. 10:14–22)

Christians may differ in their understanding of what it means to have koinonia through the Lord’s supper, but it is obvious that Paul relates the koinonia we experience with the koinonos experienced by “Israel after the flesh” and the pagan “Gentiles.” In each case, there seems to be some form of a spiritual participation through their rituals. In the case of the “Gentiles,” they “fellowship” with demons, and such fellowship provokes God’s “jealousy,” when His children actively participate.

Worship Must Conform to Truth.

It is clear that we do not have the freedom to partake in pagan ritual, but these verses say little about our participation in the Mosaic rituals. Paul argued that because God had created a revelation-laden world, humankind was “without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful” (Rom. 1:19–21).

Everyone worships something, but God requires that His creation worships Him as He truly is. Jesus said as much to a Samaritan woman with whom He conversed at a well. Her understanding of religion was superficial; it was merely a matter of where they worshipped. Jesus responded, “True worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for the Father is seeking such to worship Him. God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth” (John 4:2–24).

We don’t have freedom in worship. We “must worship in spirit and truth”! Does this imply that as long as I am truthful in my heart—praying to Jesus all the time—I can participate in pagan worship, assigning to it my own meanings? Certainly not! It would be like telling your wife, after she caught you with a prostitute, that you were thinking about her the entire time. Worshipping God “in spirit and truth” requires a harmony between the way we act, think, believe, and even speak. However, celebrating the Passover Christologically in truth would not invoke any disharmony.

But Shouldn’t We Avoid Entanglements with the Law of Moses?

Paul warns, “Do not be entangled again with a yoke of bondage” [the Law] (Gal. 5:1). Wouldn’t celebrating the Passover represent this form of entanglement? I don’t think so. Paul explains his concern further: “And I testify again to every man who becomes circumcised that he is a debtor to keep the whole law. You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace” (Gal. 5:3–4).

Paul wasn’t concerned about mere contact with the law, but the “attempt to bejustified by law.”3 Such an attempt necessarily compromises one’s faith in Christ and in His more-than-adequate justification (Gal. 3:1–5; Rom. 3:23–28). If we celebrate the Passover because we believe that this will impart blessings that we could not obtain through Christ, then we are compromising Christ, in whom we are complete (Col. 2:9–10).

At the same time, Paul warned against being circumcised (Gal. 5:1–4). However, he had his biologically half-Jewish convert Timothy circumcised (Acts 16:1–3). Was Paul acting hypocritically, and, even worse, was he jeopardizing Timothy’s relationship with his Savior? Of course not! The physical act of circumcision isn’t problematic, but rather what we believe about it. Paul wasn’t performing this act to save Timothy, but instead to make him acceptable to the Jews among whom they would be working. Likewise, celebrating the Passover isn’t necessarily problematic, but what we believe about it could be.

I would accompany my father to the synagogue on occasion. However, I didn’t believe that Scripture required this; nor was I trusting in law-keeping. I did it evangelistically and to support my father. I didn’t participate in the liturgy, lest I’d give the wrong impression and mislead others regarding my Christian identity. Nor did I want to risk provoking the Lord to jealousy (1 Cor. 10:22).

To Convey Wrong Impressions and Ideas through Unfaithful Worship Would Compromise Our Identity and Offend God.

I therefore wouldn’t participate in the Passover or other rituals at the synagogue, lest someone might construe my behavior to communicate that I believed that the Mosaic Covenant is still in effect. Such “speaking” would also be offensive to God (Job 42:7– 8). In defense of this type of participation, some Messianic Jews might cite the example of Paul taking the Nazarite vow: “Then Paul took the men, and the next day, having been purified with them, entered the temple to announce the expiration of the days of purification, at which time an offering should be made for each one of them” (Acts 21:26).

Paul’s action is truly problematic. It not only involved animal sacrifice—Christ represented the fulfillment of all animal sacrifices—it also communicated the wrong thing. Purification had been accomplished in full through Christ. Such a vow might therefore be wrongly interpreted to mean that Christ wasn’t sufficient. Besides, those Jews who were taking this vow alongside Paul would have understood Paul to be “preaching” the necessity and continuance of the Law. Matthew Henry wisely wrote, “James and the elders of the church at Jerusalem, asked Paul to gratify the believing Jews, by some compliance with the ceremonial law. They thought it was prudent in him to conform thus far. It was great weakness to be so fond of the shadows, when the substance was come….The apostles were not free from blame in all they did; and it would be hard to defend Paul from the charge of giving way too much in this matter.”4

I can see Paul in tears all the way to the temple. All of our actions must be governed by truth. Can Christians celebrate the Passover? Yes, as long as it’s done in a way that doesn’t obscure truth, but instead brings gospel truth to light. Furthermore, in demonstrating the unity of all His truth—how Jesus fulfills the Old (even the Passover) with the New—we glorify our truth-Giver!

—Daniel Mann

Daniel Mann has taught at the New York School of the Bible since 1992 and blogs at www.MannsWord.blogspot.com. He is the author of Embracing the Darkness: How a Jewish, Sixties, Berkeley Radical Learned to Live with Depression, God’s Way (Xulon Press, 2004).

]]>http://www.equip.org/article/can-christians-celebrate-the-passover/feed/0Christian Zionism in Actionhttp://www.equip.org/article/christian-zionism-in-action/
http://www.equip.org/article/christian-zionism-in-action/#commentsMon, 12 Oct 2009 15:45:00 +0000http://simonwebdesign.com/cri/beta/judaism/christian-zionism-in-action/This article first appeared in the News Watch column of the Christian Research Journal, volume 29, number 6 (2006). For further information or to subscribe to the Christian Research Journal go to: http://www.equip.orgEvangelist and megachurch pastor John Hagee does not merely talk about being a Christian Zionist, but also applies his time, talent, and treasure toward the cause. As the founder of Christians United for Israel, Hagee—pastor of Cornerstone Church in San Antonio, Texas—is a favored target for Christians who oppose Zionism and for non‐Christians who are suspicious of his end-times theology.Hagee has celebrated “A Night to Honor Israel” events for 25 years, raising more than $12 million for Israeli causes. Speakers at these pro-Israel rallies, whether held in Washington, at Hagee’s church, or in Israel itself, stand on a platform beneath massive American and Israeli flags.Hagee’s affection for Israel spills over into the design of Cornerstone Church. Guy Raz of National Public Radio reported in July that a small wall near the entrance to Cornerstone bears a citation from Psalm 122:6: “Pray for the peace of Jerusalem: they shall prosper that love thee.”“Each of these stones is from Jerusalem, and we left a gap just like there happens to be at the Western Wall, so people can put their prayer requests on paper and push it in there,” Hagee told Raz.Raz described the corridor that leads to Hagee’s office as being lined with framed paintings of Israel’s former prime ministers. “The entire Cornerstone campus is a tribute to Israel,” he reported. “The country’s flag adorns the walls and halls, and affixed to the frames of many doors are Mezuzahs, cases [each of which is] filled with a prayer and usually found in Jewish homes. The banners of the 12 Tribes of Jacob decorate the prayer sanctuary.”Through Exodus II, a program sponsored by John Hagee Ministries, Christians may donate funds to help Jews move from around the world—most from Russia, in the years after Communism’s collapse—to Israel. The program mixes humanitarian concern with the promise of helping Jews fulfill prophecy by living in modern Israel.“Today, Jewish children, parents and grandparents from around the world have a window of opportunity to return to Israel to live out their destinies according to the prophecies of Jeremiah and Isaiah—a window of opportunity that could close tomorrow because of the ever‐present threat of rising anti-Semitism, and political and social upheaval,” says an ad for Exodus II published in John Hagee Ministries’ JHMagazine.The ad continues: “As Christians, we must recognize the critical importance of the Jewish people in God’s plan for us all. We must, in direct fulfillment of Jeremiah’s prophecy, help bring God’s people home to Israel.”John Hagee Ministries says it has raised more than $8.5 million for this cause and has helped more than 10,000 Jews move to Israel. The ministry also helps support Migdal Ohr, an orphanage in Israel for immigrant children from around the world.A Hidden Evangelical Agenda? Hagee treads carefully on the issue of evangelizing Jews. Evangelist Jerry Falwell once criticized Hagee publicly after becoming convinced that Hagee believed in “dualcovenant[nkp1]” theology, which says God’s historic covenant with Jews exempts contemporary Jews from any need to accept Jesus as Messiah. Falwell, after hearing Hagee disown dual‐covenant [nkp2]theology, now sits on the board of Christians United for Israel, which unites about 400 evangelical leaders.Some Jews “are concerned that if evangelical Christians have a hidden agenda that we’re going to gather them in one massive auditorium somewhere, lock the doors, and give them a ‘come to Jesus’ speech,” Hagee told two BBC journalists who interviewed him in 2002. “What we’re saying to the Jewish community is, what we have in common is far more important than what we have that separates us. I believe that Jesus Christ is the Messiah. You do not. Let’s accept that difference and go forward.”Hagee added: “I say to my Orthodox Jewish friends, when we’re standing on the streets of Jerusalem and the Messiah is coming down the road, one of us has a big theological adjustment to make. Until then, let’s work in common cause for the State of Israel to help them secure their freedom, self-determination, and hope that Zion shall live forever.”A Helping Hand for God’s Plan. Hagee has steered clear of one unusual end-times project: an effort, through animal husbandry, to develop a red heifer that can be shipped to Israel. Some believe that they can help fulfill prophecy by providing orthodox Jews with a red heifer to sacrifice in a restored Temple at Jerusalem.Clyde Lott, a Pentecostal evangelist and cattle farmer living in Mississippi, has worked on the red-heifer project since 1990. Rabbi Chaim Richman of the Temple Institute, which operates a museum in Jerusalem, has helped Lott make connections in Israel and accompanied Lott on fundraising trips to American churches.The Los Angeles Times reported that Lott and Richman placed their project on hold because of a “maze of red tape and testing involved in shipping animals overseas—and rumors of threats from Arabs and Jews alike who say the cows would only bring more trouble to the Middle East.” Lott told the Los Angeles Times in June that he hopes to resume his project. “If there’s a sovereign God with his hand in the affairs of men, it’ll happen, and it’ll be a pivotal event,” he said. “That time is soon. Very soon.”A Novel End-Times Theology. Tim Weber, author of On the Road to Armageddon: How Evangelicals Became Israel’s Best Friend, told the Journal that a great majority of American evangelicals are pro-Israel. He estimates, however, that only one-quarter to one‐third [nkp3]of evangelicals believe in premillennial dispensationalism, with its strong emphases on the great tribulation and Israel’s role in the end times.For years dispensationalists were known for detailed arguments in defense of their end‐times [nkp4]theology. It strikes Weber as significant that today the most-recognized proponents of dispensationalism present their case through novels, such as those in the Left Behind series. “I don’t think they have the institutional power that they used to, but they certainly have the pop-culture power,” Weber told the Journal, citing Left Behind’s latest incarnation as a violent video game.Weber said that the political and social consequences of dispensationalism were primarily what drove him to write On the Road to Armageddon. Some dispensationalists, for instance, donate to groups that push for Jewish control of the Temple Mount and are willing to use violence in that cause.“The vast majority of dispensationalists are not extremist in their behavior or their views,” he said. “I think Zionists have been able to keep one step ahead of the chaos. They’ve been denying that [Arab- Israeli] peace is possible for 60 years, and so far they’ve been right. They’ve never had to completely repudiate their perspective. For that reason, they endure.”

]]>http://www.equip.org/article/christian-zionism-in-action/feed/0Kabbalah in Traditional Jewish Practicehttp://www.equip.org/article/kabbalah-in-traditional-jewish-practice/
http://www.equip.org/article/kabbalah-in-traditional-jewish-practice/#commentsThu, 11 Jun 2009 16:21:00 +0000http://simonwebdesign.com/cri/beta/judaism/kabbalah-in-traditional-jewish-practice/This article first appeared in the Christian Research Journal, volume28, number2(2005) as a companion to the feature article Kabbalah: Getting Back to the Garden by Marcia Montenegro. For further information or to subscribe to the Christian Research Journal go to: http://www.equip.org

A growing number of people in popular culture have begun to adopt Kabbalah as a means of attaining mystical experiences and unlocking esoteric secrets. This marks a major difference between the use of Kabbalah in pop culture and in traditional Judaism, and removes it from its historic Jewish context. In traditional Jewish practice, Kabbalah is supposed to be studied and discussed only under the supervision of a learned rabbi, and, as with biblical and Talmudic studies, it is conceived of as a lifelong endeavor.

Jewish adherents do not study Kabbalah to attain mystical experiences or unlock esoteric secrets, nor do they study it as mere academic exercise; rather, they study Kabbalah in order to understand G-d, creation, and themselves, so as to help themselves better keep the Torah (the Mosaic Law) and its commandments. Torah observance is the basis of Kabbalah and the primary reason for its revelation. The final purpose of the whole enterprise is to bring G-d’s “wholeness and healing” (Heb. tikkun ‘olam) to the world. In other words, the goal of educating Jewish students in the esoteric understandings of Kabbalah and the mystical practices that arise from them is so that they could bring G-d’s “wholeness and healing” to the world.

TRADITIONAL KABBALAH TEXTS and SUBJECTS

Pop culture adherents and traditional Jewish students of Kabbalah study nearly identical texts, including the Ma’aseh Merkavah, Ma’aseh Bereshit, and the Tanya, all Jewish writings with mystical contents. The primary text of all Kabbalah study, popular or traditional, is the Zohar.

Much of the subject matter in traditional Kabbalah comes from the Zohar, including the essences or attributes of G-d (the sefirot), the names of G-d, and the contraction of G-d. Other subjects include the nature of man, the organs of the body and their function in perceiving the nature of G-d, the layout of the heavens and its reflection of G-d’s being, and many other mystical subjects.

Jewish student are taught about the late-first-century Israeli sage Rashbi (Rabbi Shimon bar Yohai), who was an important link in the development of Kabbalistic literature. According to Jewish tradition, Rashbi had a revelation from G-d that he was to teach his knowledge of G-d’s essence and His creation to his students. Rashbi supposedly knew the same “secret” knowledge that G-d had shown to Moses on Mount Sinai.

Rashbi’s teachings included the 10 sefirot, which is Hebrew for the “essences” of G-d. Kabbalah teaches that G-d has 10 particular characteristics that reveal who He is: His crown, His wisdom, His understanding, His love based on His covenants, His strength, His beauty, His eternity, His glory, His foundation, and His kingdom. Aspects of this teaching have made their way into traditional Judaism in the yearly counting of the Omer (marking each day between Passover and the giving of the Torah to Moses), in which typical Jewish practice refers to and describes G-d’s characteristics (namely, His love, His glory, His foundation, and His kingdom) using Kabbalistic terminology.

Study of the sefirot is part of any beginning course in traditional Jewish Kabbalah. Pop-culture students of Kabbalah also study the sefirot, but without the necessary foundation for understanding the subject. Jewish students usually have a background in the Bible, the Talmud, and relevant rabbinic commentaries. Pop-culture students usually do not.

Jewish students of Kabbalah typically study other subjects as well, including cosmology, astrology, numerology, prophecy, dreams, healing, and reincarnation, which may account for the popularity of Kabbalistic literature in recent years among those desiring mystical and paranormal experiences. This is not, however, the motivation for the study of these subjects in traditional Jewish Kabbalah.

JEWISH OPPOSITION to KABBALAH STUDY

Historically, not all Jewish people have considered the study of Kabbalah a worthwhile endeavor. When Hasidic Judaism was born in the eighteenth century in Eastern Europe, a revival of mysticism occurred and Jews studied the texts of Kabbalah with renewed vigor. There was, however, a large negative reaction to Hasidic thought. Rabbis and students called the mitnagdim (Hebrew for “those who are opposed”) led this counter-movement and opposed the mystical practices of the Hasidic rabbis, including that of immersing themselves in Kabbalistic mysticism.

Thus, Orthodox Jews from a “mitnaged” background, many “modern Orthodox” Jews, and the overwhelming majority of Conservative, Reformed, Reconstructionist, humanistic, and Messianic Jewish adherents do not place a high value on the study of Kabbalah. The late conservative rabbi and Jewish Theological Seminary professor, Dr. Saul Lieberman, remarked that he did not want his students to study Kabbalistic texts (however, he did permit the study of such texts simply for their historical value). He declared, “It is forbidden to have a course in nonsense.” Large segments of the Jewish population today also consider Kabbalah to be mystical “nonsense.”

Today’s Jewish world places more emphasis on the study of the Bible and the Talmud (which contains the Mishna, a commentary on the written Torah; and the Gemara, a commentary on the Mishna), as well as commentaries on the Bible and the Talmud from noted rabbis.

DIFFERENT FRAMEWORK

The purpose of Kabbalah study in Jewish thought is to better keep the Torah and understand G-d, to the end of bringing wholeness to the world. The pop-culture Kabbalah phenomenon departs from this entire framework of Jewish thought regarding Kabbalah study; from its background to the motivation for its study to its purpose.

— Rabbi Dr. David Friedman

]]>http://www.equip.org/article/kabbalah-in-traditional-jewish-practice/feed/0Kabbalah: Getting Back to the Gardenhttp://www.equip.org/article/kabbalah-getting-back-to-the-garden/
http://www.equip.org/article/kabbalah-getting-back-to-the-garden/#commentsThu, 11 Jun 2009 15:59:00 +0000http://simonwebdesign.com/cri/beta/judaism/kabbalah-getting-back-to-the-garden/This article first appeared in the Christian Research Journal, volume 28, number 2 (2005). For further information or to subscribe to the Christian Research Journal go to: http://www.equip.org

SYNOPSIS

The publicity surrounding Madonna, Demi Moore, and other entertainers who are studying Kabbalah has brought this previously obscure teaching from medieval Judaism into the limelight. Traditionally, only married Jewish men over the age of 40 who have studied the Torah (the first five books of Hebrew scripture) are allowed to study this form of Jewish mysticism. Today, however, several teachers, including Rabbi Philip Berg who founded the Kabbalah Centre, are promoting Kabbalah as a tool for everyone. The Kabbalah Centre has several dozen locations worldwide and attracts students from a variety of faiths and backgrounds.

Kabbalah, an esoteric teaching that supposedly dates from the time of Abraham and reached its peak in medieval Spain, is based on the belief that the Torah is an encoded message with hidden meanings. In it, Kabbalists say, is information about Ein Sof, the creator God, whom we can know only in a limited way through the Tree of Life, which represents the 10 emanations of Ein Sof. God’s light is flowing downward toward man through this tree and through the Shekhinah, the divine feminine aspect of God.

The worldview of Kabbalah is reminiscent of Eastern spirituality and Gnosticism in its teaching of reincarnation and mystical concepts. The goal in Kabbalah is to restore the lost garden of Eden by doing good deeds and working our way up the Tree of Life back to the divine source of all. The teachings of Kabbalah stand in contrast to the biblical concept of a personal God who redeems His creatures and His creation through the work of Christ on the cross.

We are stardust, We are golden, We are billion-year-old carbon, And we’ve got to get ourselves Back to the garden. (Joni Mitchell, “Woodstock”)

For a short while in 2004, Target department stores were selling a red string bracelet as part of a Red String Package for $25.99. The source of this package was the Kabbalah Centre in Los Angeles.1 This bracelet, called a bendel, has adorned the wrists of entertainers such as Madonna and Britney Spears, who have been studying this form of Jewish mysticism at the Kabbalah Centre.2 An authentic bendel is one that has been cut from a string that has been wrapped seven times around the tomb of the biblical matriarch Rachel in Bethlehem and purportedly brings its wearer protection and luck.3 The Kabbalah Centre also sells Kabbalah water that is charged with “positive energy.”4

The Kabbalah Centre, run by Rabbi Philip Berg (who writes as Rav P. S. Berg), has at least 50 locations around the world and has distributed millions of books in 20 languages.5 Berg’s son, Rabbi Yehuda Berg, authored The Power of Kabbalah and The 72 Names of God: Technology for the Soul (Kabbalah Publishing, 2003). Rabbi Michael Berg, Berg’s other son, is editor of the 22 volumes of the Zohar, the sacred text of Kabbalah, and author of other books, including The Secret and Becoming God. According to Yehuda Berg, more than 18,000 students are enrolled in Kabbalah Centre classes in the United States, and another 90,000 are active members. The organization’s Web site is visited by 90,000 people monthly.6

Kabbalah, traditionally, is studied only by married Jewish men who are over the age of 40 and have studied the Torah.7 Some traditional Kabbalists say Berg, who has popularized Kabbalah in recent years, has commercialized it, offering it to anyone who is willing to study; however, Kabbalah was already being presented to mainstream culture via other writers, such as Rabbi David Cooper, whose book, God Is a Verb, was a bestseller in the late 1990s, and Kabbalah scholar Daniel C. Matt.

WHAT IS KABBALAH?

Kabbalah is a body of mystical and esoteric beliefs based on commentaries on the Torah, the first five books of Hebrew Scripture (Genesis to Deuteronomy). The term kabbalah comes from a Hebrew root word, kbl, which means “to receive.”8 The Jewish Talmud, a collection of ancient Rabbinic writings, teaches that the secrets of Kabbalah are to be “carefully controlled.”9 This is one reason its current popularity is unsettling to traditional Kabbalists.

Yehuda Berg states that Kabbalah is the “hidden wisdom” that has been kept secret for centuries, but now is coming into the open for a society fraught with social and spiritual problems.10 Rabbi Cooper says that Jewish mysticism satisfies people’s need for a “connection with the great unknown; we want to experience the secrets of other realities and the meaning of life.”11 Kabbalah “discusses angels and demons, souls’ journeys after death, reincarnation, resurrection, and the goal of achieving messianic consciousness”—topics that make some Jewish teachers uncomfortable.12

According to Philip Berg, Kabbalah “predates and transcends” any religion or nation.13 It is not about “rote obedience of laws and commands,” he says; rather, it is a spiritual tool that enables us to regain unity with God, “to reenter the Eden from which we were exiled.”14 Berg explains that one must set aside “linear, mechanistic” ways of rational thought in order to fully grasp Kabbalah teachings.15

THE ZOHAR: A MANY SPLENDORED PUZZLE

Kabbalah incorporates many writings, but its fundamental text is the Sefer ha-Zohar, commonly called the Zohar, which means “the Book of Radiance” or “the Book of Splendor.” This multivolume text contains accounts of conversations between legendary rabbis interspersed with commentaries on the hidden meanings of the Torah. Kabbalists consider the Torah to be an encoded document with hidden truths or meanings that must be discovered (decoded) and interpreted.16 In it is all the “wisdom of creation.”17

Matt states that the Zohar is a commentary “written in the form of a mystical novel” that reveals the deeper level of meanings in the Torah.18 One method of discovering the “deeper” or secret meanings of words in the Torah is through gematria. There are several variations of gematria, but essentially it is a system in which each Hebrew letter is assigned a numerical value and certain procedures are performed using these numbers in order to “decode” the underlying messages of the text.19

Cooper, like Matt, teaches that the Torah can be studied on four levels, represented by the acronym PRDS, which stands for pardes, meaning an “orchard” or “garden.” P (p’shat) is the literal meaning of the text; R (remez) is the metaphors, allegories, and parables of the text; D (drosh) is the meaning found through using additional material to interpret the text; and S (samekh) is the “secret, hidden meanings that offer insights into the structure of the universe.”20 This last and deepest level is very difficult and can be grasped only after “considerable study.”21

The earliest teachings of the Zohar are found in the Book of Formation, allegedly revealed to Abraham by God around 2000 BC.22 Yehuda Berg claims that wisdom from this book was carried East and developed into the religions we know today as Hinduism and Zen Buddhism. He also says this book is cited in the Qur’an and the Book of Mormon.23

The next foundational piece of the Zohar was “revealed” in the Ten Commandments that were given to Moses. According to Kabbalists, these were not commandments, but a code for the 10 sefirot, which are emanations or aspects of God’s nature. After Moses, then, Pythagoras, Plato, and Aristotle allegedly were influenced by Kabbalah. The final revelation of Kabbalah was given around AD 160 to Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai, who revealed the full body of knowledge in the Zohar. This in turn explained the secrets of the Book of Formation.24 Shimon’s master was the legendary Rabbi Akiva, who is often mentioned in Kabbalah teachings.

Concealed for centuries, Zohar manuscripts in the Aramaic language were uncovered by the Spanish Kabbalist Moses de Leon in the thirteenth century. He claimed to have copied these manuscripts, which contained “invented words” and “erotic symbolism.”25 It is believed, however, that he wrote some of the text, perhaps with other Kabbalists. Parts of the Zohar may have been transmitted through automatic writing, a technique familiar to Kabbalists, wherein one’s hand is supposedly “guided” by spirits while in a trance.26

Further revelation came in the sixteenth century with the commentary of Rabbi Isaac Luria, known as the Ari, or “Holy Lion.” According to Yehuda Berg, Luria’s teachings became the “definitive school of Kabbalistic thought.”27 Other students of Kabbalah whom Berg mentions were Dr. John Dee, royal astrologer to Queen Elizabeth I, and Sir Isaac Newton.28

Matt states that the Zohar has many unknown words, puzzles, grammatical mistakes, oxymorons, puns, parables, and contradictory statements that force the reader to search for the meaning and to examine common assumptions about God and about one’s self.29 Kabbalists believe that the Zohar itself has a mystical effect on the world when its teachings are revealed. When we learn to use the tools of Kabbalah, “we reveal Light in the world and hasten the return to Eden.”30

THE CREATOR AND CREATION: LIGHT AND VESSELS

In Kabbalah, the creator God is Ein Sof, which literally means “endless.”31 According to Rabbi David Cooper, Ein Sof “should not be called Creator, Almighty, Father, Mother, Infinite, the One, Braham, Buddhamind, Allah, Adonoy, Elohim, El, or Shaddai,” and “should never be called He.”32 These names are merely aspects of Ein Sof; we can only know Ein Sof in ways that transcend thought.33 According to Matt, the God of the Bible is one of the higher emanations of Ein Sof, since Genesis 1:1, he says, actually reads, “With beginning, It [Ein Sof] created God.”34 Ein Sof pervades all creation, so that even a stone has divinity; all existence is pervaded by Deity.35

Commentators on the Zohar offer various explanations of the creation account. One states that Ein Sof emanated a spark, “from which emerged and radiated all light,” and this constituted the upper world. A lower world was created from a light “without brightness,” which represents a lower consciousness.36

Another explains that the physical world came about from a spark or light, which expanded and gave birth through various points or emanations of the divine being. Ein Sof descended through these points until the physical world resulted. According to some commentators, this original light was hidden in the garden of Eden; according to others, it was hidden in the Torah.37

A third says that there was originally energy, a “Light” whose essence was joy and fulfillment. In order to share this essence, the Light created a “Vessel” that had an infinite desire to receive. The Vessel, however, received some of the Creator’s (Light’s) desire to share. This tension between a desire to give and a desire to receive shattered the Vessel and the Light withdrew. This caused the cosmological big bang, from which emanated matter. The Light stepped back to allow the Vessel “time and space in which to evolve its own divine nature.”38

The Book of Formation teaches that the 22 letters of the Hebrew alphabet are “energy” and “frequency patterns” that helped to mediate creation.39 These letters are antenna that “arouse and harness the energy of the universe.”40 Meditating on, reciting, or merely scanning these letters with one’s eyes creates a channel between the Light of the Creator and one’s soul, and thus creates an internal change within the soul.41

According to Michael Berg, we receive Light by learning to share. We reconnect with the Light and are thus able to become vessels of Light. We must become like the Creator in our essence by changing from receiving to sharing and thereby attaining fulfillment and joy.42 He states that sharing is not a matter of good deeds, righteousness, or enlightenment, but it brings us fulfillment through acting in “self-interest in the highest sense.”43 Phillip Berg writes that we must have the desire to “receive in order to share” so that the Vessel will be able to receive the Light “in full force.”44 Our actions in the physical world create “channels that connect us to the Divine.”45

There seem to be some parallels between this teaching and the emphasis in Gnosticism on the remote, unknowable divine being and on the Light. In one Gnostic account, for example, wisdom sends her daughter, Eve, to awaken Adam, who has no soul, so that “his descendants might become vessels of the light.”46

THE TREE OF LIFE: A TREE OF LIGHT

Another core teaching of Kabbalah is the Tree of Life, which represents the 10 emanations and aspects of Ein Sof.47 This is often graphically illustrated as an inverted tree, with the root (the first point) at the top growing downward into three “branches” that each have three points. The points on the right branch represent masculine, positive energy; the points on the left branch represent feminine, negative energy; and the points in the middle balance the ones on the right and left.48 It is also illustrated by a chart of 10 interconnected points laid out in this same fashion (see fig. 1). The divine Light becomes less bright as it travels down through these emanations toward the bottom point.

These emanations were a “primal beginning,”49 and are called the 10 sefirot (sefirah in the singular). The sefirot represent the model of man’s original nature.50 From the top down, the first one is Keter (crown), which adorns the head of Adam, who is made in the image of God. The next two are Hokhmah (wisdom) on the right and Binah (understanding) on the left.51Binah is the womb, the “Divine Mother,” who conceives the seven lower sefirot.52 These seven lower sefirot, according to some, represent lower or ordinary consciousness and what happens in the physical world.53 In order downward, the remaining seven are: First, on the right, Hesed (loving kindness) and on the left, Gevurah (strength); in the middle is Tiferet (beauty), son of Hokhmah and Binah. Second, on the right, Netsah (victory or eternity) and on the left, Hod (splendor), both being the source of prophecy; in the middle is the ninth sefira, Yesod (foundation), which represents the phallus, the “procreative life force of the cosmos.”54 Finally, the tenth point at the bottom and in the middle is Malkhut (kingdom), a manifestation of the material universe where we live.55Gevurah, the fifth emanation, is the beginning of physicality, and associated with this sefirah is the archangel Samael, known as the Adversary. Gevurah can thus be destructive.56

Philip Berg states that it is at the point of Malkhut (or Malchut) that the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil “sinks its roots in a mirror image of the Tree of Life.”57 On the other hand, Matt calls this point Shekhinah, the divine feminine, and states that the union of the lower Shekhinah with the upper Tiferet is the goal of spiritual life, and is seen in the human marriage bonds.58 (The breaking of this male/female tie is considered by some to have been Adam’s sin.) Shekhinah is often spoken of as the “Divine Feminine or the feminine face of God”59 or “the female aspect of the Light”60 or the feminine “Divine Presence.”61 The Shekhinah is also referred to as the “Apple Orchard” or the “Mystical Garden of Eden.”62

Kabbalah teaches that God’s blessings flow to the world through the Tree of Life when there is ethical behavior among humans; evil actions disrupt the union of the sefirot and empower demonic activity. God and humankind are interdependent—God needs humans in order to manifest his attributes in the world.63 Matt writes that humans are to be vessels for God’s power and creativity, and that without us, God is incomplete and cannot realize the divine “design in and for the world.”64 Thus, we are “co-creators” with “God Itself.”65

According to Kabbalah, a person must metaphorically and spiritually ascend the 10 points of the Tree of Life to reunite with the Divine. As one increases his or her spiritual capabilities, one increases the capacity to contain more of the Light that pours down through these 10 emanations, and so draws nearer to the Creator as he or she ascends.66 Thus, the Tree of Life symbolizes the Divine and offers the way for humans to be reunited with the source from whence we came. Kabbalah, according to one writer, is not about worship or belief, but rather “becomes a direct path of communion between the individual and the Divine.”67

IN THE GARDEN: THE SHATTERING OF VESSELS

In Kabbalah, Adam and Eve are viewed as symbols of male and female energy, and as a metaphor for the “primordial Vessel” whose existence came before creation, thus encompassing all the souls of humanity to come.68 The presence of the Serpent, considered a fragmenting force, was necessary for creation; otherwise, all would have remained united with God.69 This gave man the opportunity to earn the Light on his own.70

One of the hidden meanings in the creation story, according to Kabbalah, is that there are two gardens of Eden—one above, and one below—and reuniting these two gardens is the goal of humankind.71 Yehuda Berg believes that the forbidden fruit was a sexual act between Eve and the Serpent.72 Matt interprets Adam’s sin as driving out the Shekhinah by eating only from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil and not from the Tree of Life, thus separating the Shekhinah from her “husband,” Tiferet, and separating consciousness from unconsciousness.73 This act caused Adam and Eve to lose their garments of light and fall into a lower physical form, becoming clothed with garments of animal skin.74

Philip Berg’s interpretation of the fall is that Adam and Eve chose with good intentions to have more Light, since this is what the Serpent offered. Their choice was wrong, but because the Serpent’s temptation enhanced the difficulty of their choice, it was also worthy.75 This sounds contradictory, but Berg explains that evil comes from God and serves the Creator. Cooper says that everything, including evil, has a divine nature.76 Adam and Eve took a second bite of the fruit, done out of self-serving motives, thus short-circuiting their ability to receive the fullness of the Creator’s Light and moving them back to the material level with a knowledge of death and evil.77 God’s command that Adam must now work the land was not literal; rather, it meant that he must “rebuild the Vessel of [himself] through [his] own work in the world.”78

The Tree of Life, Kabbalah teaches, is a fountain of God’s light, flowing ever downward. This was free flowing in the garden of Eden, but humankind has disrupted this flow and is in shattered vessels, which it must rebuild on its own. The garden must be regained.

THE ART OF CORRECTION AND REDEMPTION

Kabbalah, like Eastern religions, teaches reincarnation—the belief that we die and are reborn, living many lives, ever seeking to advance spiritually. Kabbalah explains this as a process of “repairing our broken vessels,” which may take many lifetimes. This process of reparation and “mending the world through intense soul-work and acts of creative love and justice” is called tikkun, and is also referred to as “healing” or “correction.”79

Kabbalists believe that a wise soul, called a tzaddik, is able to affect the upper world and help bring more light into creation. They view the biblical patriarchs as such people.80 When a critical mass of humanity spiritually advances, they say, it tips the scale in favor of all humanity, and will bring everyone back to a connection with the immortality we had before the fall.81 We all have sparks of the Divine and are shards, albeit broken ones, of the original Vessel in the Garden. We can fix ourselves and regain what was lost in the fall.82 All will be readmitted to Paradise.83 Our days spent doing good deeds are “woven into a garment of splendor that will clothe the soul as she enters God’s presence in the world to come.”84

On the practical level, Kabbalah teaches a person how to climb the Tree of Life, the branches of which are like “rungs on a ladder to enlightenment.”85 Cooper explains that there are three ways to ascend to higher consciousness: through study and scrutiny of behavior; through seclusion, contemplation, and soul-searching; or through a constant awareness of the implications of everything one does.86 Any action in the universe affects the rest of the universe; thus, we are to be mindful of our actions.87

Yehuda Berg gives detailed advice on how one can overcome selfish, reactive behavior with unselfish, proactive behavior. In fact, Berg considers Satan to be a code word for the “ego-driven, reactive behavior” through which we seek to receive for the self alone; this we must avoid.88 He offers several principles for being proactive, such as: never blame others or external events, obstacles are an opportunity to connect to the Light, internal change is created through the Hebrew alphabet, and the negative traits one sees in others are reflections of one’s own negative traits.89 Berg also teaches what he calls the “Certainty Principle.” Using the story of the exodus as an example, he explains that God did not part the Red Sea; instead, Moses and the Israelites proceeded with certainty and this gave them the power to part the waters. When one overcomes one’s reactive nature, one will be given the ability to overcome the natural laws, but one must act with certainty.90 Berg also explains that one of the tools Moses used was the 72 names of God, a sequence of letters that gave him “access to the subatomic realm of nature.”91

Philip Berg emphasizes that we must accept responsibility for everything in our lives, even our own death.92 We “print our own ticket” back to Paradise through our individual work.93 Michael Berg advises us to rediscover who we truly are, to realize that we must share in order to take on the Creator’s essence. By doing this, we will bring about the world’s transformation, and can even bring about the end of pain, suffering, and death itself.94 According to Philip Berg, this final transformation will happen upon the arrival of the Messiah.95

KOSHER KABBALAH? THE CRITICS AND THE HYPE

The Kabbalah Centre has been severely criticized by some Orthodox Jewish rabbis for commercializing and undermining the teachings of the Kabbalah. The Bergs teach men and women of all ages and faith backgrounds, who have little or no knowledge of the Torah, and they do a brisk business of selling books and other Kabbalah products. The recent publicity has led traditional Kabbalists to decry the teachings of the Kabbalah Centre as watered-down, pop-culture Kabbalah. According to Adin Steinsaltz, a Hasidic rabbi in Jerusalem, the relationship between these teachings and authentic Kabbalah is like “the relationship between pornography and love.”96 Another rabbi said that the two versions of Kabbalah are as different as the children’s TV character “Barney” and a prehistoric dinosaur.97 (See the sidebar for an overview of traditional Kabbalah.)

What also has seemingly incensed so many rabbis against the Kabbalah Centre is its connection with entertainers like Madonna, which gives the appearance of a celebrity culture merrily partaking of an ancient wisdom. Orthodox Jewish rabbis consider Kabbalah to be a sacred treasure that should be approached with reverence and respect. They claim that this attitude is sorely lacking in those associated with the Kabbalah Centre.

The Kabbalah Centre’s connection to celebrities and its commercialization of Kabbalah products has made it a more visible target of criticism. It should be noted, however, that the Kabbalah Centre is not the first to offer Kabbalah outside of its usual tradition. Teachings on the Kabbalah have been available to the general public since the latter half of the twentieth century, including through several books cited in this article. In the 1980s, an organization in which I taught astrology offered a popular two-year course on Kabbalah.

THE CHRISTIAN RESPONSE: ESOTERIC VERSUS CLEAR REVELATION

In order to respond to those who are studying or are interested in Kabbalah, Christians must understand and be able to explain how Kabbalah’s teachings differ from essential Christian doctrines. The first step should be to show that Ein Sof and the God of the Bible are not the same. Ein Sof is considered to be remote and unknowable, and the Tree of Life is believed to be a revelation of Ein Sof’s attributes. The biblical God, however, is not remote; He is intimately involved with His creatures and has revealed His attributes through nature (Rom.1:20), His Word (Heb.1:1), and Christ (John14:9), not through mysterious puzzles.

Kabbalah presents Ein Sof’s attributes more as abstract principles than as personal qualities. The God of the Bible, however, is revealed as having personal attributes; He can think (Ps.147:5), feel (Ps.116:15), and will (Rev.4:11), and He relates to His creatures (humans) in whom He also placed those personal attributes (Gen.1:26–27).

Ein Sof’s attributes are said to be dualistic (male and female), and opposites are in balance within Ein Sof. The biblical God is one (Deut.6:4); He is a perfect unity of righteousness, justice, truth, mercy, and love, but these do not coexist in balance with their opposites within God. The Bible clearly states, for example, that “God is light, and in Him there is no darkness at all” (1John1:5 NASB), and that the God of truth “cannot lie” (Titus1:2 NASB).

Ein Sof is incomplete, since he needs man in order to complete his plan. An incomplete God, however, is an imperfect God, and cannot be God at all. If God is the standard for righteousness, He must be perfect and complete. The God of the Bible existed from all eternity (Gen.1:1; Col.1:17) in complete perfection in Himself (Exod.3:14; Matt.5:48; Acts17:25). His creation of man was not out of necessity, but for His pleasure (Rev.4:11).

The second step is to explain the difference between the two understandings of the Torah. Kabbalah teaches that the Torah is encoded with hidden meanings. In contrast, historic Christian interpretation assumes that God communicated the Torah to Moses in a normal fashion, and that the text says what it appears to say; there is no hidden meaning. Understanding ancient Hebrew grammar, history, culture, and literary style is a sufficient method of interpreting the text. Seeking hidden meanings is a hallmark of gnosticism and occultism. Such a method can lead to imposing any foreign meaning on a text that one wishes. Furthermore, this understanding implies that the Torah is insufficient revelation, since the Zohar is needed to uncover its meaning; thus, the additional revelation (the Zohar) is more complicated than the Torah. An esoteric text, however, does not clarify a plain text. The God who created humans is able to communicate sufficiently to them in the Torah; no special key to unlock its meaning is needed.

Kabbalah is essentially gnostic; that is, one must learn the spiritual secrets of the Torah through the cryptic and intricate Zohar, and then advance through knowledge and actions. This is in strong contrast to biblical Christianity, which is essentially relational and is based on a clear, direct revelation from a personal God and on the historical death and resurrection of God’s Son, Jesus Christ. We do not need to delve into esoteric realms to find the truth; it is readily found in God’s Word, and was declared by the Messiah, Jesus Christ (John14:6). Nor do we earn redemption by doing good works; rather, redemption is provided through Christ’s atonement. When one trusts Christ, one knows God and is adopted by Him as a child (Gal.4:5; Eph.1:5).

In Kabbalah, the Shekhinah is sometimes called Eden, and the Torah is the garden where the Creator hid the light. By becoming vessels of light, we can regain Eden. In contrast, the Bible teaches that it is God who will redeem all creation, making it a “new heaven” and a “new earth” (Isa.66:22; 2Pet.3:13). This redemption began with Christ’s death on the cross, the greatest tikkun of all. His work provided healing for all who trust Christ and ultimately for the whole physical creation (Rom.8:21–23).98 In trusting Christ, we are reconciled with our Creator, delivered from His wrath on sin, and gain a relationship with God who loves us (John3:16; Rom.5:9; 2Cor.5:17–19). Light versus darkness is a theme in Kabbalah and in the Bible. The true light, however, is not in the Tree of Life, but in Christ, who proclaimed, “I am the Light of the world” (John8:12).

Complete redemption of our bodies and of the physical creation is in the future after Christ’s return.

]]>http://www.equip.org/article/kabbalah-getting-back-to-the-garden/feed/0Answering Jewish Objections to the New Covenant of Christhttp://www.equip.org/article/answering-jewish-objections-to-the-new-covenant-of-christ/
http://www.equip.org/article/answering-jewish-objections-to-the-new-covenant-of-christ/#commentsThu, 11 Jun 2009 15:51:00 +0000http://simonwebdesign.com/cri/beta/judaism/answering-jewish-objections-to-the-new-covenant-of-christ/This article first appeared in the Christian Research Journal, volume 28, number 6 (2005). For further information or to subscribe to the Christian Research Journal go to: http://www.equip.org

SYNOPSIS

Jewish authorities insist that God’s Word doesn’t change and that He doesn’t make mistakes. The new covenant prophesied by the Hebrew prophets, they say, merely represents a facelift on the old. There is, however, much Old Testament evidence that the Mosaic covenant was temporary and has passed away.

Jeremiah said that the Ark, the centerpiece of the Mosaic system, would not be remembered (Jer.3:14–16). For one thing, the Mosaic covenant was to be fully followed only in the land of Israel (Deut.12:8–9). For another, it contained provisions, like the proscription against Israelites coming into the presence of God, that were opposed to what God ultimately had promised His people—a marriage between Himself and Israel. The Mosaic provisions, therefore, had to be temporary.

The other covenants (Noahic, Abrahamic, Davidic, and the new covenant) are called “eternal,” but this language is never associated with the Mosaic covenant. Consistent with this fact, Israel never will be able to receive her promised blessedness through the Mosaic covenant. Moses, rather, continually told Israel of their impending failure under this covenant (Deut.32;29:4;30:1–6); consequently, blessedness would be the byproduct of the new covenant, which would supersede the Mosaic.

Finally, the Hebrew Scriptures do not picture the Mosaic system playing any role in the fulfillment of prophecy. There instead will be a brand new covenant, with new features including an imputed righteousness, initiated by a new High Priest, offering a new sacrifice in His own “Temple.”

The New Testament misinterprets our Hebrew Scriptures. It misrepresents the Mosaic covenant as the source of death (James2:10; Rom.7:9; 3:20; 2Cor.3:6) and claims that it will pass away! On the contrary, the Mosaic Covenant imparts life (Ps.1;119:32,92,104,127,144), and the Word of God doesn’t change (Isa.40:8)!” This is a common and formidable rabbinic challenge. Jeremiah, however, wrote, “Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah—not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke” (Jer.31:31–32; Heb.8:8–9, emphases added).1

Doesn’t this settle the matter? Hasn’t a “new covenant” superseded the old? Not according to rabbinic scholar Gerald Sigal: “By any objective reading of the text, one fails to see any reference to a substitution of a new covenant which will supersede the old. There is nothing in Jeremiah’s statement to suggest that the new covenant will contain any changes in the Law (the Mosaic Covenant).”2

Jeremiah, however, wrote that God would establish a “new covenant”; therefore, doesn’t this explicitly exclude the Mosaic covenant, which Israel continued to break? Not according to Sigal: “Obviously, Jeremiah’s ‘new covenant’ is not to be viewed as a replacement of the existing (Mosaic) covenant, but merely as a figure of speech for the reinvigoration and revitalization of the old (Mosaic) covenant.”3

According to Sigal, the new covenant is the Mosaic covenant with a minor face-lift. Jeremiah, however, claims that this “new covenant” will not resemble the old (Jer.31:32). Why not? Because the Mosaic covenant was a failure, at least in the sense that Israel failed to keep it. Israel “broke” it as naturally as breathing. It had to be replaced by something new.4

When we examine the features of the new covenant further, we find that they represent more than a face-lift; they are, rather, a major overhaul. There are laws in it, but they are inscribed on the heart, and forgiveness is permanent, whereas under the Mosaic scheme, sacrificial offerings had to be made on a continual basis for the sins of the people.

Sigal defends his interpretation by citing Psalm111:7–8 and Isaiah40:8, which state that God’s Word doesn’t change.5 A change in covenants, however, doesn’t imply that God’s Word had changed or had been wrong. It simply implies that a new time and situation might demand a new course of action. When Israel crossed the Jordan into the Promised Land, God’s activity changed—the manna ceased falling—but God’s Word hadn’t changed. He never promised that manna would always fall from heaven.

Sigal’s other defense is more to the point: “That the covenant of old is of eternal duration, never to be rescinded or to be superseded by a new covenant, is clearly stated in Leviticus26:44–45.”6 If Sigal is correct, this verse offers clear support for his contention that the Mosaic covenant can never be superseded, and he then might be justified in his awkward interpretation of Jeremiah. This verse reads:

“Yet for all that, when they are in the land of their enemies, I will not cast them away, nor shall I abhor them, to utterly destroy them and break My covenant with them; for I am the Lord their God. But for their sake I will remember the covenant of their ancestors, whom I brought out of the land of Egypt in the sight of the nations, that I might be their God: I am the Lord.”

(Lev.26:44–45, emphasis added)

Is this “covenant of their ancestors” the Mosaic covenant? No. In the preceding two verses in Leviticus, the Lord identifies the covenant to which He refers: “Then I will remember My covenant with Jacob, and My covenant with Isaac and My covenant with Abraham I will remember…they will accept their guilt, because they despised My judgments and because their soul abhorred My statutes” (Lev.26:42–43, emphasis added).

It’s because of God’s unchanging, unconditional promises to the patriarchs that Israel had hope, not because of the Mosaic covenant that brought condemnation to Israel according to her deeds. This was the prime purpose of the highly conditional Mosaic covenant: to show Israel in neon lights the extent of her damning sins, and thereby to impress on her her need for a Savior, and lead her to grace (Rom.3:19–20; Gal.3:22–24).

Nevertheless, at first blush, “the covenant of their ancestors, whom I brought out of the land of Egypt” (v.45) could understandably be mistaken for the Mosaic covenant. This apparent contradiction between vv.42‑43 and v.45 is easily resolved, however, once we remember that the Abrahamic covenant had been renewed with Isaac, then with Jacob and his sons and hence with all Israel; consequently, while it is true that Israel had been under the Mosaic, they were no less under the Abrahamic.

An additional reason to understand Moses as referring to the Abrahamic covenant is that at the time that Israel was “brought out of the land of Egypt,” they were only under the Abrahamic. The installation of the Mosaic covenant had to wait for an additional two months.

How could Sigal have made such a mistake? Weren’t there other verses to which he could have appealed to make his case that the Mosaic covenant was everlasting? If so, he doesn’t seem to be aware of them. Is there any evidence that the Mosaic is everlasting and therefore won’t be replaced?

THE OLD COVENANT WAS TEMPORARY

Jeremiah prophesied that God would make a “new covenant” unlike the old one. The old, however, would not remain side-by-side with the new. “‘Then it shall come to pass, when you are multiplied and increased in the land in those days,’ says the Lord, ‘that they will say no more, “The ark of the covenant of the Lord.” It shall not come to mind, nor shall they remember it, nor shall they visit it, nor shall it be made anymore’” (Jer.3:16, emphases added; see also Isa.43:18; 65:17).

The “ark of the covenant” represented the Mosaic covenant. It was the receptacle for the two tablets of the Ten Commandments, the centerpiece of the Mosaic institution. When Jeremiah said that the “ark of the covenant” will “not come to mind,” he was symbolically referring to the Mosaic covenant. It would not come to mind because it would be replaced by another system that would “feed [them] with knowledge and understanding” (Jer.3:15). If the Mosaic covenant would not be remembered, then it would certainly not be in effect.

The Mosaic was not merely limited in duration; it was also limited in location to its Promised Land setting. Moses reminded Israel: “You shall not at all do as we are doing here today—every man doing whatever is right in his own eyes—for as yet you have not come to the rest and the inheritance which the Lord your God is giving you” (Deut.12:8–9, emphasis added).

Israel was free from many of the legal stipulations as long as it had not yet reached the Promised Land. The fact that the Israelites born during the desert wandering had not been circumcised provides strong evidence of this (Josh.5:5).

The Mosaic covenant was never called “everlasting.” This wasn’t because Scripture seldom describes covenants in general as everlasting. On the contrary, many covenants are so referenced; but never the Mosaic. The first covenant mentioned in the Bible is the one that was made with Noah (Gen.9:16; Isa.54:9–10) and it was called “everlasting.”

The next covenant was that made with Abraham and subsequently extended to Isaac and Jacob. This too was termed an “everlasting” covenant (Gen.17:19,13; Ps.105:9–10,42; 1Chron.16:15–17).7

The Mosaic covenant was next. This one formed the center of Israelite thought and practice and had center stage throughout the bulk of the Hebrew Scriptures. The Scriptures, however, never referred to it as “everlasting” or “eternal” or by any other term to that effect.8 The absence of any such description is profoundly significant given the covenant’s prominent place in Israelite life.

The next covenant was a “perpetual” covenant given within the framework of the Mosaic: the Sabbath (Exod.31:17). The perpetuity of the Sabbath, however, doesn’t suggest that the Mosaic covenant was also perpetual. If the Mosaic covenant had been everlasting, it would have been unnecessary to state that its various features were likewise everlasting. The Sabbath, therefore, was distinguished as perpetual because the Mosaic was not.

The next covenant also was given within the context of the Mosaic. This was the promise to Phinehas of a “covenant of an everlasting priesthood” (Num.25:13). This covenant, as with the Sabbath, stood in contrast to the Mosaic covenant. If the Mosaic had been everlasting, it would have been redundant to offer Phinehas, the Levite, an everlasting priesthood, since all the specifications of the Mosaic already would have been understood as everlasting, including the provision of an everlasting priesthood for the Levites. This covenant with Phinehas was called “everlasting” also because its promise was a done deal, and ultimately would be fulfilled in the priesthood of all believers (Exod.19:6; 1Pet.2:5).

The next divinely commissioned covenant concerned David. This too was an “everlasting” covenant (2Sam.23:5; Isa.55:3).

The Mosaic covenant is sharply contrasted with the others. Why is a covenant that is so important and central not regarded as everlasting? Fulfillment of the everlasting covenants depended on one thing—the faithfulness of God to keep His promises. In contrast, the Mosaic depended on the faithfulness of humankind. Scripture always radically distinguishes the two: God’s faithfulness is certain, while ours is a twisted mess (Ps.14:1).

THE OLD COVENANT WAS INADEQUATE

The New Testament maintains that although the Mosaic covenant wasn’t flawed, it was inadequate (Rom.8:3;7:5; Heb.7:18–19;10:1). A hammer might be perfectly crafted, but it wasn’t designed to drill a hole; likewise, the Mosaic covenant was perfect, but it wasn’t designed to defeat sin and backsliding. This is not simply a Christian rationalization; the Hebrew Scriptures support this interpretation.

The Mosaic covenant was conditional: if Israel was obedient, she would receive blessing; if disobedient, she would be cursed (Lev.26; Deut.28–29). The Mosaic “promises” dependedon the obedience of Israel to God’s commands. In contrast, the Noahic covenant was unconditional: God promised He would never again destroy the world with a flood as He had done, saving only Noah and his family.

The conditional nature of the Mosaic covenant meant that when Israel sinned and required God’s mercy, she could not appeal to the promises of the covenant. These would bring only condemnation. Israel, instead, had to appeal to former promises from the “covenant of your fathers” (Deut.4:30–31; see also Lev.26:42–45).

The Mosaic Covenant Was Grace-Deficient

Israel’s hope had to come from the patriarchal (Abrahamic) or Davidic covenant. We find no Hebrew prophet crying out, “God will remember the covenant that He made with Moses and have mercy on you!” Almost all of the prophets explicitly proclaim the restoration of Israel, but not as a result of Israel’s obedience to the Law. The Law, instead, had brought condemnation. Its requirement that the curses had to be brought on Israel (Deut.27:26) would have to be set aside in order for Israel to find mercy.

The Law was inadequate. It could never provide what Israel needed. Israel’s problems were much deeper. Israel needed more than rules upheld by positive and negative reinforcements; she needed a change of heart—the very thing she lacked. Moses had promised “stiff-necked” Israel that, sometime in the future, God would “circumcise your heart and the heart of your descendants, to love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, that you may live” (Deut.30:6). Israel needed a circumcised heart in order to love God and live, but that hadn’t happened yet. It was like telling Israel that she was doomed to failure!

More to the point, Moses told Israel, “Yet the Lord has not given you a heart to perceive and eyes to see and ears to hear, to this very day” (Deut.29:4). Something had to change. Israel lacked a heart for God despite all of her proclamations otherwise. She would turn her heart from the covenant, and tragedy would overtake her. Moses was prophetically explicit about this in a song that God directed him to teach Israel about a man who symbolized Israel: “Then he forsook God who made him” (Deut.32:15).

This is exactly what Israel would do despite all the Mosaic warnings. Moses was sure of it: “For I know that after my death you will become utterly corrupt, and turn aside from the way which I have commanded you. And evil will befall you in the latter days, because you will do evil in the sight of the Lord, to provoke Him to anger through the work of your hands” (Deut.31:29).

Joshua reiterated this message of gloom to Israel in the midst of Israel’s protestations to the contrary (Josh.24:19). The Mosaic covenant couldn’t be everlasting. It would have been an everlasting failure. It had to be replaced!

Such predictions of failure are not to be found in other religious or political literature. No politician ever put forth a program and then stated unequivocally that it was doomed to fail. Hebrew Scriptures would not contain such negative messages unless they were true and unless the people were divinely convinced that they were God’s very words, even though they didn’t like the messages.

The Mosaic Covenant Had to Be Replaced

God promised Israel that she would be a nation of priests (Exod.19:6; Isa.61:6) and that He would dwell in her midst (Lev.26:11–12; Joel3:17, 21). Her present situation, however, directly contradicted these promises. She couldn’t bear God’s presence (Exod.20:19), and He couldn’t bear hers (Exod.33:2–3). God would meet with Moses in the tent of meeting, but this tent was placed far outside the camp and no one except Moses and Joshua could approach it (Exod.33:7).

The temple also communicated the same forbidding presence of the Lord: only the priests could enter into the Holy Place, and only the high priest could enter into the High Holy Place, and only once a year. When they did enter, it could only be after they had fulfilled every requirement (Lev.16:2). God’s presence was a terrifying reality. This was quite different from what Israel had been promised. Israel was supposed to be so intimate with God that their relationship was described as a marriage (Hos.2:18‑19; Isa.62:4). In order for this portrait to be realized, the Law and its temple curtain of separation would have to come down.

The institution of the temple offerings also conveyed the inadequacy of the Mosaic Law and covenant. The fact that they had to be offered continually meant that these offerings did not cover subsequent sins; thus, whenever an Israelite entertained a covetous thought, he was again in sin and therefore deserved to be cursed. The sacrifices also failed to remove the discomforting thoughts of this terrifying God; Israel was promised curses for every infraction (Deut.27:15–26).

It is perhaps most significant that the Mosaic covenant never offered the promise of eternal life. If Law-keeping couldn’t guarantee eternal life, what good was it? It wasn’t that the concept of eternal life was entirely absent from the Mosaic revelation. Jesus used Exodus3:6 to correct the Sadducees who denied the resurrection: “I am the God of your father—the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob” (emphasis added). This proved that the three patriarchs were still living, since God didn’t say that He was their God, but that He is their God. The Law, instead, was disturbingly silent regarding how to obtain this eternal life. This was evidently another way that God hinted to Israel that the Mosaic covenant was temporary and would be superseded by a new covenant that guaranteed eternal life.

The Mosaic Covenant Is Not Part of the Ultimate Solution

The portrait that emerges from Hebrew Scriptures does not show Israel as finally developing more self-control and obedience to perform the Mosaic Law successfully in order to secure blessing and deliverance. According to prophecy, God’s eventual deliverance will not come because Israel wakes up, smells the coffee, and repents on her own. God will have to initiate Israel’s return. “For the Lord will judge His people and have compassion on His servants, when He sees that their power is gone” (Deut.32:36, emphasis added).

It is not any positive act of Israel’s that will warrant God’s deliverance; rather, it is Israel’s destitution that will move God. According to Moses, Israel will violate the Mosaic covenant and bring down on herself the promised curses. It is God who then will have “compassion.” According to Jeremiah, this will be through a “new covenant” (Jer.31:31–34), implemented in a radically different way. Moses knew that Israel would fail and that her problem was one of the heart, and if Israel had a heart problem, she would need a heart answer (Deut.30:6).

Israel, without a changed heart, inevitably went astray. She needed to be born again with a new heart. She needed a covenant that would go much further than the Mosaic.

THE NEW COVENANT SUPERSEDES THE OLD

Ezekiel states that even though Israel consistently disgraced God before the other nations, God would act lovingly on her behalf. Ezekiel writes, “I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols. I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; I will take the heart of stone out of your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. I will put My Spirit within you” (Ezek.36:25‑27, emphases added; see also 11:19‑20).

The very thing Israel had lacked under the old, she would receive under the new—a new heart and the indwelling Holy Spirit. Jeremiah associates this necessary change with a new and permanent covenant: “Then I will give them one heart and one way, that they may fear Me forever, for the good of them and their children after them. And I will make an everlasting covenant with them, that I will not turn away from doing them good; but I will put My fear in their hearts so that they will not depart from Me” (Jer.32:39‑40, emphasis added).

There is the guarantee of a hope here that isn’t found under the Mosaic covenant; as a result of God’s grace, “they will not depart from me.” This is why the Mosaic covenant couldn’t be called “eternal”: as long as blessing depended on Israel, no guarantee could be made; but if it depended on God, He could make an ironclad guarantee. How could God guarantee that He would always bless Israel if His blessings depended on Israel’s obedience? He would change Israel’s heart to ensure her obedience.

In contrast to the Mosaic covenant, which was followed by cycles of rebellion and devastation for the people of Israel, the new covenant would be characterized by unending peace. “Moreover I will make a covenant of peace with them, and it shall be an everlasting covenant with them; I will establish them and multiply them, and I will set My sanctuary in their midst forevermore. My tabernacle also shall be with them; indeed I will be their God, and they shall be My people” (Ezek.37:26‑27, emphases added; see also 34:25‑26; Isa.54:9‑10).

The terms “sanctuary” and “tabernacle” in this context shouldn’t be taken literally as actual buildings, which would call to mind the Mosaic covenant, but figuratively (e.g., Amos9:11; 2Sam.7:11; Zech.6:12‑13). The intimacy between God and His people makes a building unnecessary and counterproductive. He will be the sanctuary. Walls will no longer separate. God will enter into the most intimate form of relationship with His people. Hosea points to a future, radical covenant that would ensure God’s unfailing love: “In that day I [God] will make a covenant…. / I will betroth you to Me forever;/ Yes, I will betroth you to Me / In righteousness and justice, / In lovingkindness and mercy” (Hos.2:18‑19, emphases added; Isa.62:4).

This wasn’t a covenant that already had been in place. God says, “I will make a covenant!” It would be a “forever” covenant. Significantly, God lays down no conditions that Israel must fulfill in order to enter into her blessedness, as had been characteristic of the Mosaic covenant. God, instead, will enter into a permanent relationship with Israel; He will marry His people. Hosea had been instructed to take his adulterous wife Gomer into seclusion; likewise, God would unilaterally do the same for Israel.

The idea of a marriage with God must have seemed somewhat blasphemous to Mosaic Israel. Her experience had been characterized by God’s words to Moses: “Tell Aaron your brother not to come at just any time into the Holy Place inside the veil, before the mercy seat which is on the ark, lest he die” (Lev.16:2). This was quite different from the intimacy of marriage. The features of the Mosaic covenant did not allow for such a reality. This temporary covenant would have to be replaced.

Isaiah concurs that this “yet to be” covenant would be everlasting: “For I, the Lord…will make with them an everlasting covenant. / Their descendants shall be known among the Gentiles, / And their offspring among the people. / All who see them shall acknowledge them, / That they are the posterity whom the Lord has blessed” (Isa.61:8‑9, emphases added). Under the old covenant, God’s people were to be separated from the contaminating influence of other peoples. Under the new covenant, God’s people would be among the nations.

Could the Mosaic have merely been emended to accommodate these radical changes? No. A covenant is a contract to which no one could add or subtract (Deut.4:2). Changes would require a new covenant and fresh blood to seal it. The Mosaic, therefore, would “no longer be remembered” (Jer.3:14‑16).

Many verses state that God will have mercy on His people, but none of them affirm that God will have mercy by virtue of the covenant He made with Moses. His mercy, instead, is based on something radically different. The prophetic passages that we have examined look beyond a redemption based on offerings mediated by the Levitical priesthood to a redemption based on God’s unmediated intervention.

A New Atonement

Deuteronomy32 contains the song that Moses taught Israel. It represents both a disturbing warning and a prophetic overview of Israel’s blessing, rebellion, and eventual deliverance. The song surprisingly ends on a positive note: “Rejoice, O Gentiles, with His people; / For He will avenge the blood of His servants, / And render vengeance to His adversaries; / He will provide atonement for His land and His people” (Deut.32:43, emphasis added).

If the Mosaic system had been adequate, this task of “atonement” would not have fallen on God but rather on the Levites, who had been divinely commissioned to provide atonement. The Levites and the Mosaic system are prophetically absent, however, at the time of Israel’s eventual deliverance. Scripture never portrays them as part of the answer.9 It is never the Mosaic system that comes to the rescue, but God Himself: “Help us, O God of our salvation, / For the glory of Your name; / And deliver us, and provide atonement for our sins, / For Your name’s sake!” (Ps.79:9; also 65:3, emphasis added).

A new High Priest, in line with the priesthood of the enigmatic Melchizedek (Ps.110:4), would trump the Levitical priesthood, which required that all priests had to come from the tribe of Levi, according to the Mosaic covenant. This “King of Righteousness” took the scriptural stage only once—three verses worth (Gen.14:18‑20)—but he made an enduring impact, partly because he was both a king and a priest, something forbidden under Mosaic Law. This suggests a change.

Likewise, Zechariah prophesied about a distant individual who would also be a “priest on His throne.” This person would “build the temple of the Lord” (Zech.6:13). Christianity understands that Jesus “built” this very temple through His incarnation, taking on the form of a man and “tabernacling” among us (John1:14; 2:19).

Along with a radically different High Priest, Scripture prophesies a new priesthood. God promised Israel that she would be a nation of priests (Exod.19:6; Isa.61:6), something she had never experienced. This nation of priests would necessarily replace the Levitical order that restricted priesthood to Levites.

At first glance, this seems to contradict the New Testament promise that all believers would be priests (1Pet.2:5,9; Rev.1:6). How could Israel assume the promised priesthood when this was a standing promise to all believers? This is easily reconciled by recognizing that Israel also must come to a faith in Christ in order to receive her promised priesthood along with all other believers.

This understanding also helps us reconcile the more difficult verses. Jeremiah said that to the degree that God’s promises to David are unshakable, they are equally unshakable to the Levites (Jer.33:18,20‑21; Num.25:12‑13). On the surface, this is troubling for Christianity: if the Levitical priesthood remains, so must the Mosaic covenant. The prophecies, however, do not say that the Levitical priesthood will remain unchanged. They merely state that God will remain faithful to the Levitical priests. They will become priests according to the same promise that will make all Israel priests. There are other ways to function as priests besides offering animal sacrifices. God instructed Israel to offer the “sacrifice (literally calves) of our lips” as her offering of repentance (Hos.14:2; see also Ps.69:30‑31;50:13‑14), not actual calves.

Levitical atonement was sorely inadequate. God had to pay the price of atonement. His atonement would provide the basis of the everlasting covenant.

“And I will establish My covenant with you. Then you shall know that I am the Lord, that you may remember and be ashamed, and never open your mouth anymore because of your shame, when I provide you an atonement for all you have done” (Ezek.16:62‑63, emphases added). This covenant was not to be based on any Levitical functions, but on the unilateral grace of God as promised in the covenant God made with Abraham.

Israel’s hope had always been Messianic, not Mosaic. It looked toward a Redeemer who would refine Israel with His “fire,” rather than the sprinkling of animal blood, which God never ultimately desired (Ps.51:16‑17).

“Behold, I send My messenger,

And he will prepare the way before Me.

And the Lord, whom you seek,

Will suddenly come to His temple,

Even the Messenger of the covenant,

In whom you delight.

Behold, He is coming,”

Says the Lord of hosts.

“But who can endure the day of His coming?

And who can stand when He appears?

For He is like a refiner’s fire

And like launderers’ soap.”

(Mal.3:1–2, emphases added)

The “Messenger of the covenant” is no less than God Himself, coming to make His atonement. He is “the Lord,” and it is “His” temple. He is the “refiner’s fire”; He will purify His people.

A New Blood Offering

A new covenant requires a new blood offering (Exod.24:8; Heb.9:18). An everlasting covenant requires a special blood offering. “Thus says the Lord: / ‘In an acceptable time I have heard You, / And in the day of salvation I have helped You; / I will preserve You and give You / As a covenant to the people, / To restore the earth, / To cause them to inherit the desolate heritages’” (Isa.49:8, emphasis added; see also 42:6).

To whom does “You” refer? Virtually all Christian and some Jewish exegetes agree that the Messiah is the covenant. It is His death that will seal the covenant, and His life that is the substance of the covenant. It is His blood that will release us from sin and death. Zechariah adds:

“Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion!

Shout, O daughter of Jerusalem!

Behold, your King is coming to you;

He is just and having salvation,

Lowly and riding on a donkey,

A colt, the foal of a donkey….

He shall speak peace to the nations;

His dominion shall be from ‘sea to sea,

And from the River to the ends of the earth.’

As for you also,

Because of the blood of your covenant,

I will set your prisoners free from the waterless pit.”

(Zech.9:9–11, emphasis added)

The King who comes “riding on a donkey” is the Messiah, of course (Matt.21:5), and the covenant that will secure freedom for “your prisoners” is the new covenant (Isa.61:1, 8). The “blood of your covenant,” therefore, must be more potent than the blood of animals, which failed to secure true, even temporary forgiveness (Rom.3:25). This new blood will seal a covenant of monumental proportions. The Levites play no role here.

It’s clear that Israel’s hope wasn’t in the Mosaic system but in a Savior who Himself would provide atonement. That’s why He is often called the “Redeemer” (e.g., Job19:25; Ps.19:14;78:35; Isa.41:14;43:14;44:6,24;47:4). It is the Redeemer who ultimately will provide the payment to deliver His people from sin (Ps.49:15). That’s why His people are called the “ransomed” or the “redeemed” (Isa.35:9‑10;51:11;62:12). Redemption is never accomplished on the basis of Israel’s righteousness, but on the Lord’s (Ps.85:13).

How does the Mosaic covenant fit into this portrait of grace? It is “holy and righteous” (Rom.7:12; Ps.119), but it is never portrayed as the source of hope; it is, rather, the source of condemnation that points to the Hope.

Is the law then against the promises of God? Certainly not! For if there had been a law given which could have given life, truly righteousness would have been by the law. But the Scripture has confined all under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. But before faith came, we were kept under guard by the law, kept for the faith which would afterward be revealed. Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. (Gal.3:21‑24)

4. Evangelical scholars debate over the nature of the covenants (e.g., whether the Abrahamic covenant is conditional or unconditional) and the relationship between them (e.g., whether the Mosaic covenant is unique or whether it is fundamentally a reiteration of previous covenants).

5. Ibid., 72.

6. Ibid., 71.

7. How can these covenants be everlasting in light of the fact that the new is the everlasting covenant? The promises of these covenants will be carried over into the new, where they will find their ultimate fulfillment.

8. Isaiah24:5 makes mention of an “everlasting covenant” that can easily be mistaken as the Mosaic; however, the context suggests that this covenant applies to all humankind.

9. The Mosaic system, however, does play an important role as the schoolmaster that reveals our desperate need for a Savior (Rom.3:19‑20; Gal.3:22‑24).

]]>http://www.equip.org/article/answering-jewish-objections-to-the-new-covenant-of-christ/feed/0Does the Bible Make a Distinction between Israel and the Church?http://www.equip.org/article/does-the-bible-make-a-distinction-between-israel-and-the-church/
http://www.equip.org/article/does-the-bible-make-a-distinction-between-israel-and-the-church/#commentsThu, 11 Jun 2009 15:02:00 +0000http://simonwebdesign.com/cri/beta/judaism/does-the-bible-make-a-distinction-between-israel-and-the-church/This article first appeared in the Ask Hank column of the Christian Research Journal, volume31, number1 (2008). For further information or to subscribe to the Christian Research Journal go to: http://www.equip.org

“There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise” (Gal.3:28–292).

At the heart of a currently popular end–times theology is the belief that God has two distinct people—one of whom must be raptured before God can continue His plan with the other. Rather than teaching that God has two categories of people, Scripture reveals only one chosen people who form one covenant community, beautifully symbolized by one cultivated olive tree.

First, far from communicating a distinction between Israel and the church, the Scriptures from beginning to end reveal that God has only ever had one chosen people purchased “from every tribe and tongue and language and nation” (Rev.5:9). As Paul explains, the “mystery is that through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together of one body, and sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus” (Eph.3:6, emphasis added). Indeed, the precise terminology used to describe the children of Israel in the Old Testament is ascribed to the church in the New Testament. Peter calls them “a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God” (1Pet.2:9). Ultimately, they are the one chosen people of God, not by virtue of their genealogical relationship to Abraham, but by virtue of their genuine relationship to “the living Stone—rejected by men but chosen by God” (1Pet.2:4).

Furthermore, just as the Old and New Testaments reveal only one chosen people, so too, they reveal only one covenant community. While that one covenant community is physically rooted in the offspring of Abraham—whose number would be like that of “the stars” of heaven (Gen.15:5) or “the dust of the earth” (Gen.13:16)—it is spiritually grounded in one singular Seed. Paul makes this explicit in his letter to the Galatians: “The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. The Scripture does not say ‘and to seeds,’ meaning many people, but ‘and to your seed’ meaning one person, who is Christ” (Gal.3:16). As Paul goes on to explain: “If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise” (Gal.3:29). The faithful remnant of Old Testament Israel and New Testament Christianity are together the one genuine seed of Abraham and thus heirs according to the promise. This remnant is not chosen on the basis of religion or race but rather on the basis of relationship to the resurrected Redeemer.

Finally, the one chosen people, who form one covenant community, are beautifully symbolized in the book of Romans as one cultivated olive tree (see Rom.11:11–24). The tree symbolizes Israel; its branches symbolize those who believe; and its root symbolizes Jesus—the root and the offspring of David (Rev.22:16). Natural branches broken off represent Jews who reject Jesus. Wild branches grafted in represent Gentiles who receive Jesus. Thus says Paul, “Not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham’s children….In other words, it is not the natural children who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring” (Rom.9:6–8). Jesus is the one genuine seed of Abraham! And all clothed in Christ constitute one congruent chosen covenant community connected by the cross.3

]]>http://www.equip.org/article/does-the-bible-make-a-distinction-between-israel-and-the-church/feed/0Holocaust Apologetics: Undoing the Death of Godhttp://www.equip.org/article/holocaust-apologetics/
http://www.equip.org/article/holocaust-apologetics/#commentsThu, 11 Jun 2009 14:37:00 +0000http://simonwebdesign.com/cri/beta/judaism/holocaust-apologetics/This article first appeared in the Christian Research Journal, volume 28, number 4 (2005). The full text of this article in PDF format can be obtained by clicking here. For further information or to subscribe to the CHRISTIAN RESEARCH JOURNAL go to: http://www.equip.org/christian-research-journal/

SYNOPSIS

Some Jews doubt God’s existence; others vehemently deny it. Much of the Jewish objection to belief in God stems from a specific occurrence of evil, namely the Holocaust, the systematic murder of six million Jews in Nazi-occupied Europe. There is a more basic problem, however. Before anyone can begin to discuss the question, “How could a good God rightfully allow evil?” he or she must first explore the question, “How can a human rightfully define evil?” This second, more basic question involves a task that is impossible without God. Respected Holocaust historian Elie Wiesel likely faced these same issues as he struggled to resolve his own dilemma concerning whether to believe in God as a post-Holocaust Jew. Examining these questions in light of his experience may help us present evidence for the existence of God to other Jews who are wrestling with a similar existential conflict.

Those of us who have tried to share the biblical case for the messiahship of Jesus with our Jewish family or friends have been interrupted at times with the same bitter, angry reaction: “There is no way that I will investigate whether Jesus is the Messiah. I don’t even believe in God! Since the Holocaust, it is impossible for a Jew to believe in God!”

Whenever nonbelievers raise the problem of evil in evangelistic conversations, they effectively erect a wall or barrier against the gospel. When they focus on the problem of evil in the hideous form of the Holocaust, as many Jews do, they reenforce that wall considerably. When they react to the Holocaust with staunch religious atheism or existential struggle, they fortify that wall even further against the gospel, making it a formidable evangelistic obstacle for the Christians who are trying to reach them. The common spiritual reaction of existential struggle displays itself most clearly in the life and writings of Eliezer (Elie) Wiesel, the great historian of the Holocaust. Like many Jews who share this plight, he is torn between his denial of God’s existence and his own sense of God’s existence. Understanding Wiesel’s struggle can nurture our compassion toward Jews who experience similar angst. Studying the reasons for believing in God despite such evil may strengthen our ability to help erode the wall in their hearts. As we gently dismantle this twice-buttressed wall of resistance, we will be able to present the gospel lovingly and effectively to the Jewish people.

GRASPING THE PREVALENCE OF RELIGIOUS ATHEISM

The most well-known Jewish atheistic theologian is Richard Rubenstein. His words testify to his ongoing struggle over the existence of the God of the Jewish Scriptures: “I am compelled to say that we live in the time of the ‘death of God’.…the thread uniting God and man…has been broken. We stand in a cold, silent, unfeeling cosmos, unaided by any purposeful power beyond our own resources. After Auschwitz, what else can a Jew say about God?”1 Elsewhere, Rubenstein adds, “More than the bodies of my people went up in smoke at Auschwitz. The God of the covenant died there.”2

Radical Jewish theologians such as Rubenstein are not alone as they wrestle with the loving God of traditional Judaism and the sickening horror of shocking evil. As even Orthodox rabbi Irving Greenberg writes, “To talk of love and of a God who cares in the presence of the burning children is obscene and incredible; to lean in and pull a child out of a pit, to clean its face and heal its body, is to make…the only statement that counts.”3

Jewish theologian Seymour Cain adds that the Holocaust is a “stumbling block,” and “whatever may be the case with Christian theologians, for whom it seems to play no significant generative or transformative role, the Jewish religious thinker is forced to confront full face that horror, the uttermost evil in Jewish history.”4

Messianic believer and theologian Jakob Jocz notes, “Auschwitz casts a black pall upon the civilized world. Not only…man’s humanity…but God himself stands accused. Jews are asking insistently: Where was God when our brothers and sisters were dragged to the gas ovens?…Faith in the God of Israel… is…a challenge, but after Auschwitz it is an agonizing venture for every thinking Jew.”5

FACING THE CHALLENGE OF RELIGIOUS ATHEISM

Christians must be prepared to deal with this issue. Some may think it sufficient merely to fall back on the famous Chasidic saying forged in the flames of the Holocaust, “For the faithful, there are no questions; for the non-believer, there are no answers.”6 Falling back on clichés or ignoring this challenge to the existence of God, however, is inexcusable for those who are committed to the saving message of the gospel. As Peter, the Apostle to the Jews, exhorted us, “Sanctify [the Messiah] as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense [Gk. apologia] to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence; and keep a good conscience so that in the thing in which you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in [the Messiah] will be put to shame” (1 Pet. 3:15–16).7

It is worth noting Peter’s admonition that we must make our “defense” with “gentleness and reverence.” This is especially true with Jewish atheists, because there are two kinds of religious atheism that the convulsions of the Shoah (Holocaust) have induced, and both need to be handled with respect.

The first kind of Holocaust-induced atheism is an emotional atheism that arises out of the depths of a hurting heart. It does not and cannot respond to logical reasoning, especially if it began too close in time to the traumatizing event.8 This kind of atheist needs pastoral love, patience, and prayer, as well as a listening ear and a sensitive heart.

The second kind of Holocaust-induced atheism is a belligerent atheism that arises out of the foolishness of an arrogant heart. “The fool [Heb. nabal] has said in his heart, ‘There is no God’” (Pss. 10:4; 14:1; 53:1); in a senseless and rebellious posture (i.e., nabal), he or she refuses to submit to the truth (Rom. 1:18–32). This kind of atheist needs a loving, logical, and firm encounter with the truth of the Word of God and the convicting ministry of the Holy Spirit (cf. John 16:7–11; 2 Tim. 2:24–26; 3:16–17; 4:1–5; Jude 3, 17–23; etc.).

UNDERSTANDING RHETORICAL STRATEGY

In developing a Holocaust apologetic, we must begin with a rhetorical strategy. For example, if I were an attorney attempting to win a case, I would do everything I could to get someone from the opposing side to testify on behalf of my client. In other words, I would begin with what my audience already accepts, then connect the information back to what I want (here, what God wants) them to understand. This was the rhetorical strategy of the apostle Peter on the day of Pentecost, when, with a holy boldness, he lovingly reminded his hostile audience about God’s promise of a latter-day outpouring of His Spirit through the Jewish prophet Joel (Acts 2:14–21). In a sense, this apologetic approach could be termed “pre-evangelism” (see, e.g., Rom. 9:1–3; 10:1), because it may earn us the right to be heard on further matters (e.g., messianic prophesy, Jesus’ death and resurrection, justification by faith, etc.).

THE PAIN OF ELIE WIESEL: CONFIRMING WHAT JEWS ACCEPT

We can begin, then, with the case of esteemed Holocaust historian Elie Wiesel, himself a Jewish survivor, whom Jews already accept as perhaps the most well-known and respected voice of the Shoah. Once we connect his dilemma to their own, we can point them to his apparent resolution of the dilemma and help them understand the likely reasons for that resolution.

Elie Wiesel was born in 1928 to a religious family in the village of Sighet, Transylvania. He received a traditional Talmudic education, studying with the Chasidic rabbis in the village. In 1944, the Nazis deported all of Sighet’s Jewish inhabitants to various concentration camps. Wiesel’s mother, father, younger sister, and other relatives were murdered. His two other sisters survived.

Wiesel during the Holocaust

Wiesel described his life during the Holocaust in his earliest and most profound work, titled Night. He described a hanging that he witnessed when he was 16 in these well-known paragraphs from that work:

[The head of the camp] had a young boy under him…a child with a refined and beautiful face….

One day when we came back from work, we saw three gallows rearing up in the assembly place….SS all around us, machine guns trained: the traditional ceremony. Three victims in chains—and one of them, the little servant, the sad-eyed angel….

All eyes were on the child. He was lividly pale, almost calm, biting his lips….

The three victims mounted together onto the chairs.

The three necks were placed at the same moment within the nooses….

“Where is God? Where is He?” someone behind me asked.

At a sign from the head of the camp, the three chairs tipped over.

Total silence throughout the camp. On the horizon, the sun was setting….

We were weeping….

Then the march past began. The two adults were no longer alive. Their tongues hung swollen, blue-tinged. But the third rope was still moving; being so light, the child was still alive….

For more than half an hour he stayed there, struggling between life and death, dying in slow agony before our eyes. And we had to look him full in the face. He was still alive when I passed in front of him. His tongue was still red, his eyes not yet glazed.

Behind me, I heard the same man asking: “Where is God now?”

And I heard a voice within me answer him: “Where is He? Here He is—He is hanging here on this gallows.”9

Many believe these lines to be some of the most poignant descriptions ever written about the Holocaust. The immediate impact of these events on the young Wiesel was emotional atheism. He believed that his God died.

Many Jews believe that evil won out and that God died in the Holocaust. That settles the quandary for them, but it didn’t settle it for Wiesel. His bitter experiences during those horrific years of the Holocaust did not deprive him of belief in God once-and-for-all. Wiesel’s progression of thought on this issue may provide valuable insight for those Jews who suffer the same kinds of existential confusion as he did over their own religious atheism.

Wiesel after the Holocaust

It appears that further reflection and the passage of time forced Wiesel to adjust some of his perspectives on the Holocaust. He recorded this shift in his lesser-known and more-reflective pieces. We shall note only three examples from these writings, although there are several that bear similar testimony.

In a journal article, Wiesel affirmed that any genuine protest against God—such as those of Abraham (Gen. 18), Moses and Aaron (Exod. 5, 32; Num. 16), Job (Job 13, etc.), David (Pss. 10, 13, etc.), Jeremiah (Jer. 12; Lam. 3, etc.), and Habakkuk (Hab. 1)—must come from within the covenant context, not from without. Specifically, he stated, “The Jew…may rise against God, provided that he remains within God.”10

Later, in a television interview, Wiesel propounded the following thought: “For a Jew to believe in God is good. For a Jew to protest against God is still good. But to simply ignore God, that is not good. Anger, yes. Protest, yes. Affirmation, yes. But indifference to God, no. You can be a Jew with God; you can be a Jew against God; but not without God.”11

Finally, Wiesel testified to his own ongoing struggle with God when he declared, “To be a Jew is to have all the reasons in the world not to have faith…in God, but to go on telling the tale…and [having your] own silent…quarrels with God.”12 The emotional Wiesel refuses to embrace the painful reality of the God of his tradition; the rational Wiesel, like Jacob of old, grapples with God as a living Being, seeking blessing for himself and his people.

Why would Wiesel withstand all of this existential tension? What would drive someone like Wiesel to maintain his theism when religious atheism seems to be more viable? It is important to have your Jewish loved ones consider why he does not yield, as perhaps they do, to a hard-core religious atheism. There are several possible reasons; the two discussed in the remainder of this article are based on the implications of atheism.

IF THERE WERE NO GOD: Granting what jews assume

It is likely that Wiesel ultimately refused to abandon God altogether because he was able to envision the logical consequences of his Holocaust-induced religious atheism. To begin our case for God’s existence during and since the Holocaust, we must lovingly nudge our Jewish friends toward those same logical conclusions. In other words, we must ask, What would be some of the inevitable consequences of persisting in the belief that there is no God or that God really did die in the Holocaust? A rational exploration of these consequences may cause our Jewish friends to reevaluate their atheism.

Consequence no. 1: Illegitimate Law

Laws do not come from nowhere. They must come from lawmakers or lawgivers. If there is no God, laws must come from humans; that is, they must be derived from the best and worst proposals of humankind. To embrace atheism is to embrace a world without any transcendent Lawgiver.

Without a transcendent moral Lawgiver there can be no transcendent moral laws, and the people who govern or control therefore will be the elite who are in power, either the consenting majority or the empowered minority or individual (e.g., Hitler and the Nazis). As Fyodor Dostoyevsky (1821–1881) observed in his novel The Brothers Karamazov, if there is no transcendent rule or reign of law, that is, “if there is no God, all things are permissible.”

So it was in the dark days of the Judges, when “there was no king in Israel; everyone did what was right in his own eyes” (Judg. 17:6; 21:25). Evidence of this in our own day is clearly manifest: public opinion reigns supreme. Gallup and his polls have replaced Moses and his laws!

In this kind of relativistic Holocaust kingdom, who could successfully argue that six million Jews were any better or any worse than six million ants crawling on the ground? The Nuremberg Laws would seem to beg this question! Without any higher or transcendent laws from a transcendent Lawgiver, the Nazis would have had every right to pass any kind of laws they deemed necessary against non-Aryans (so-called vermin), whether dictated by Adolph Hitler or approved by the majority of Germans, including the German State Church. Without God, they would have been beyond any kind of moral accountability. It would have been their perfect right, privilege, and responsibility to determine for themselves who and what had meaning, purpose, and value;13 indeed, a world without a transcendent Lawgiver is a world that is devoid of any true meaning, purpose, and value.

In such a Holocaust kingdom, it makes perfectly good sense to destroy the undesirable (e.g., the Jews, the Gypsies, the political dissidents, the homosexuals, etc.) before they destroy the desirable (i.e., the Aryans). Auschwitz was the logical outcome of such a humanistic, relativistic worldview.14 Without the moral restraint of a transcendent set of laws from a transcendent moral Lawgiver, anarchy inevitably will result (see, e.g., Rom. 1:18–32; 1 Tim. 1:8–11).

It was, ironically, the “higher” laws of the Hague and Geneva Conventions, used in the Nuremberg and other International War Tribunals, that served to convict and punish the Nazis for crimes against peace, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide.15 These two modern war conventions were born out of the Middle Ages and grounded in biblical worldviews that were committed to a transcendent moral or natural law, to which all men were accountable.16

Contemporary historian Robert G. Clouse not only verifies these historical underpinnings of the Hague and Geneva Conventions, but maintains that many of the framers of these conventions were themselves strongly committed to a Christian worldview: “There was a strong Christian influence that led to international gatherings such as the Hague Conferences….From these meetings came decisions that limited the nature of war, protected the rights of prisoners of war, affirmed the need to care for the sick and the wounded, promised protection of private property and guaranteed the rights of neutrals.”17 For example, statesman, jurist, and historian Hugo Grotius (1583–1645), “the father of international law,” who laid the foundation for all modern war conventions, was also a committed Protestant commentator on the Bible. Grotius wrote his treatise on the law of war in part because he believed that nations share “a common law of Rights,” but yet had observed that “all reverence for divine and human law was thrown away, just as if men were thenceforth authorized to commit all crimes without restraint.”18

This transcendent moral law is nothing less than the universal law of God “written on human hearts” (Rom. 2:14–16; cf. Acts 17:22–31).19 Western society still finds that law, which accords with a biblical worldview, entirely and conveniently pertinent to matters such as modern war tribunals, despite the fact that it has abandoned that worldview. It is virtually impossible, then, even if we attempt to deny the divine Lawgiver Himself, to deny that His laws are written on our hearts. We expect, even demand, that others live by them every day, even if we don’t live by them on a daily basis.20 Wiesel appears to understand that it is important to remain committed to the divine Judge and Lawgiver, as Abraham did when he proclaimed, “Shall not the Judge of all the earth deal justly?” (Gen. 18:25). Perhaps Wiesel believes this because he knows the serious consequences of atheism, the second of which follows.

Consequence no. 2: Whimsical Morality

Like laws, morals and ethics do not come from nowhere; they come from moral and ethical determiners. Any set of morals that is not transcendently based, that is, determined from outside the human frame of reference, of necessity must be determined from within the human context. This means that any moral or ethical system derived from such a godless world must be relative to its very core. We, accordingly, could not talk about “morals” (i.e., prescriptive norms: what people ought to do), but only about “mores” (descriptive norms: what people actually do).

Philosopher Norman Geisler states this dilemma as follows: “How would you know that the Holocaust is ultimately wrong [or evil] unless you knew what was ultimately right? If you don’t have an absolute standard for right, you can’t say that [the Holocaust] is absolutely wrong. That’s just your opinion, and somebody else’s opinion could be, the Holocaust was the best thing in the history of mankind.”21 Geisler and Turek make this same point in relationship to Hitler’s actions and the Nuremberg War Tribunal:

When the Nazi War criminals were brought to trial in Nuremberg, they were convicted of violating the Moral Law (which is manifested in international law)—the law that all people inherently understand. If there was no such international morality that transcended the laws of the secular German government, then the Allies would have had no grounds to condemn the Nazis….without God to provide an objective standard of right and wrong, people set the rules. And if people set the rules, there is no objective moral standard by which to evaluate Hitler’s actions against those of, say, Mother Teresa.22

To those who say that everything is relative and that there are no moral absolutes, Geisler counters, “You can’t make everything relative unless you’re standing on the pinnacle of your own absolute.” 23

If God is removed from any system in which all moral values derive from Him, then His removal inevitably must result in anarchy (Rom. 1:18–32). Even Jewish death-of-God theologian Richard Rubenstein is forced to grant this point: “Murdering God…is an assertion of the will to total moral and religious license.”24

Historian Paul Johnson points out that the relativistic morality of the Nazis grew out of the existential philosophical notion of obeying the “iron laws” that were created by the state25 instead of the absolute moral laws that were taught in the churches: “Hitler…appealed to the moralistic nature of many Germans…[who desired to live ‘morally’ but did not possess any] code of moral absolutes rooted in Christian faith.…Marx and Lenin translated [this philosophy] into a class concept; Hitler into a race one. Just as the Soviet cadres were taught to justify the most revolting crimes in the name of a moralistic class warfare, so [were] the [German] SS…in the name of race.”26

Johnson also observes, in a frontal way, that if we cut “the umbilical cord [from] God, our source of ethical vitality would be gone.…we humans are all Jekyll and Hyde creatures, and the monster within each of us is always striving to take over.”27 In other words, morality without God is Macbeth’s “tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing”!

In states of relativism, it does not matter who the moral ethicist is or what his or her particular view is.28 All of these systems leave one in the moral abyss determined by those in power at the time. Whether it is Jeremy Bentham (1748–1832) and his relative utilitarianism (i.e., one should act so as to produce the greatest good for the greatest number in the end), or Joseph Fletcher (1905–1991) and his relative situationism (i.e., everything is relative to the situation and the only thing required in any moment is love), or any other approach leaving the divine perspective out of the formula, we are left in the hands of those who have enough power to determine for us what is the moral truth at any given moment. Hitler and the Nazis, as well as most of the rest of Germany’s population, certainly were convinced that their solution to “the Jewish question” was the greatest good for the greatest number in the long run (i.e., Bentham) and that they were carrying out the most loving acts of ethnic cleansing in that particular situation (i.e., Fletcher).

CONNECTING what jews accept to what they don’t

When our Jewish friend or colleague protests in a vehement moral outrage that there has been no God since the Holocaust, it is imperative that we lovingly remind him or her that such a moral outrage, if it is to be valid, must be grounded in the very existence of God, His transcendent law, and His absolute morality. Otherwise, it is ultimately groundless emotional ranting.

We must help our Jewish friend recognize, along with Elie Wiesel, that the consequences of denying God’s existence are far worse than accepting it, even after the Holocaust. In fact, if there were no God, the Nazis could not have been held accountable for their evil deeds, for there only would have been deeds, not evil deeds. There can be public opinions and private viewpoints, but without God, there can be no legal or moral accountability for one’s actions.

God has commissioned us to help our Jewish friends and colleagues recognize this reality. And just maybe, along with this recognition, some of them might even be open to discussing the messiahship of Jesus.

DOING APOLOGETICS TO THE GLORY OF GOD

The aim of apologetics, like everything else, ultimately is to glorify God.29 As the Westminster Shorter Catechism rightly affirms: “Man’s chief end is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever.” God is committed to our task: when we fully depend on Him and prayerfully seek to dismantle the wall that is buttressed by the evil of the Holocaust and the dissonance of doubt, God will work in and through us with the Jewish people—to His glory. After all is said and done, including our allowance for the place of divine mystery (Deut. 29:29), Isaiah’s confession concerning the Jewish people is still true: “In all their affliction He was afflicted, and the angel of His presence saved them; in His love and in His mercy He redeemed them, and He lifted them and carried them all the days of old” (Isa. 63:9).

12. Elie Wiesel, “Talking and Writing and Keeping Silent,” in The German Church Struggle and the Holocaust, ed. Franklin H. Littell and Hubert G. Locke (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1974), 277.

14. Moral philosophers explain that every evil power in history has employed two sets of tactics to perpetuate the moral wrongs that they have instigated. In Nazi Germany, there was one to condition the soldiers that the Jews really deserved to be exterminated (to force them to view the Jews as evil and as vermin), and another to condition the non-Jewish population that the Jews required deportation (to force them to suppress all questions about the fate of the Jews). See J. Budziszewski, Written on the Heart: The Case for Natural Law (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1997), 156; and What We Can’t Not Know: A Guide (Dallas: Spence Publishing, 2003), 192–97.

15. For the use of these conventions in the post-World War II tribunals and “The Crystallization of the Principles of International Criminal Law,” see Encyclopaedia Judaica, 1972 ed., s.v. “War Crimes Trials.” See also Gideon Hausner, Justice in Jerusalem (New York: Holocaust Library, 1966); Adalbert Rückerl, The Investigation of Nazi Crimes, 1945–1978: A Documentation, trans. Derek Rutter (Hamden, CT: Archon Books, 1980); and Bradley F. Smith, Reaching Judgment at Nuremberg (New York: New American Library, 1977).

16. For background on these conventions, see Percy Bordwell, The Law of War between Belligerents: A History and Commentary (Chicago: Callaghan and Co., 1908).

19. See C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (New York: HarperCollins, 2001), 17–39 (this section originally published as The Case for Christianity in 1942); C. S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man (New York: HarperCollins, 2001, originally published in 1944); and J. Budziszewski, Written on the Heart.

20. See Norman L. Geisler and Frank Turek, I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2004), 169–93.

28. For an overview of approaches to ethics, see Norman L. Geisler, Options in Contemporary Christian Ethics (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1981).

29. See John M. Frame, Apologetics to the Glory of God (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 1994).

]]>http://www.equip.org/article/holocaust-apologetics/feed/0Jesus Is the Messiahhttp://www.equip.org/article/jesus-is-the-messiah/
http://www.equip.org/article/jesus-is-the-messiah/#commentsTue, 09 Jun 2009 16:29:00 +0000http://simonwebdesign.com/cri/beta/judaism/jesus-is-the-messiah/As one reads through the Bible, we find progressively detailed prophecies about the identity of the Messiah. Obviously, as the prophecies become increasingly detailed, the field of qualified “candidates” becomes increasingly narrow.

In showing a Jewish person that Jesus is the Messiah, one effective approach is to begin with broad prophecies and then narrow the field to include increasingly specific and detailed prophecies. You might use circles to graphically illustrate your points as you share these prophecies.

Scripture says that the Messiah had to become a human being. This circle is obviously a very large circle.

The Messiah’s humanity is prophetically spoken of in Genesis 3:15, when God is pronouncing judgment against the serpent following the fall of Adam and Eve:

And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel.2

The word “offspring” refers to descendants. The Messiah would be a descendant of the woman — that is, He would be a human being. We find this fulfilled in Galatians 4:4-5:

But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law, to redeem those under law, that we might receive the full rights of sons.

Circle 2: The Circle of the Messiah’s Jewishness

Scripture says that the Messiah had to be Jewish — that is, He had to be a descendant of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. This narrows the circle considerably. Of all human beings who have ever lived, only Jewish human beings would qualify.

Point the Jewish person to Genesis 12:1-3, where God makes a covenant with Abraham (the “father” of the Jews):

The LORD had said to Abram, “Leave your country, your people and your father’s household and go to the land I will show you. I will make you into a great nation and I will bless you; I will make your name great, and you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you.”

Then point the Jewish person to Genesis 28:10-15:

Jacob left Beersheba and set out for Haran. When he reached a certain place, he stopped for the night because the sun had set. Taking one of the stones there, he put it under his head and lay down to sleep. He had a dream in which he saw a stairway resting on the earth, with its top reaching to heaven, and the angels of God were ascending and descending on it. There above it stood the LORD, and he said: “I am the LORD, the God of your father Abraham and the God of Isaac. I will give you and your descendants the land on which you are lying. Your descendants will be like the dust of the earth, and you will spread out to the west and to the east, to the north and to the south. All peoples on earth will be blessed through you and your offspring. I am with you and will watch over you wherever you go, and I will bring you back to this land. I will not leave you until I have done what I have promised you.”

These Bible passages indicate that the promised seed (in Genesis 3:15) was to come through the line of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

Circle 3: The Circle of the Messiah’s Tribal Identity

The circle gets even narrower when one demonstrates that the Messiah had to come from the tribe of Judah. This is shown in Genesis 49:10:

The sceptre will not depart from Judah, nor the ruler’s staff from between his feet, until he comes to whom it belongs and the obedience of the nations is his.

Here Jacob is on his deathbed. Before he dies, he affirms that the sceptre (of the ruling Messiah) would be from the tribe of Judah.

Circle 4: The Circle of the Messiah’s Family

Scripture tells us that the Messiah had to be from David’s family. This narrows the circle still further. We see this affirmed in 2 Samuel 7:16:

Your [i.e., David’s] house and your kingdom shall endure for ever before me; your throne shall be established for ever.

We also read in Jeremiah 23:5-6:

“The days are coming,” declares the LORD, “when I will raise up to David a righteous Branch, a King who will reign wisely and do what is just and right in the land. In his days Judah will be saved and Israel will live in safety. This is the name by which he will be called: The LORD Our Righteousness.”

Clearly the ruling Messiah had to come from the family of David.

Circle 5: The Circle of the Messiah’s Birthplace

Scripture clearly prophesies that the Messiah was to be born in Bethlehem. This narrows the circle of possible candidates for the Messiah tremendously. Micah 5:2 tells us:

“But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times.”

So far we have seen that the Messiah had to become a human being, had to be a Jew, had to be from the tribe of Judah and the family of David, and He must be born in Bethlehem (a small, insignificant city in ancient times). Failure to fulfill any one of these conditions disqualifies a person as a possible candidate.

Circle 6: The Circle of the Messiah’s Manner of Life, Rejection, and Death

Regarding the Messiah’s manner of life, rejection, and death, point the Jewish person to Isaiah 53. Note the following excerpts:

Who has believed our message and to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed? He grew up before him like a tender shoot, and like a root out of dry ground. He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him. He was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering. Like one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not. Surely he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows, yet we considered him stricken by God, smitten by him, and afflicted. (Isa. 53:1-4).

He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; he was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth. By oppression and judgment he was taken away. And who can speak of his descendants? For he was cut off from the land of the living; for the transgression of my people he was stricken. He was assigned a grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death, though he had done no violence, nor was any deceit in his mouth. (Isa. 53:7-9).

Note from these verses that: (1) The Messiah was to be despised and rejected by His fellow Jews. (2) He would be put to death following a judicial proceeding. (3) He would be guiltless. Obviously these facts about the Messiah narrow the circle still further.

Circle 7: The Circle of Chronology

Point the Jewish person to Daniel 9:24-26:

Seventy ‘sevens’ are decreed for your people and your holy city to finish transgression, to put an end to sin, to atone for wickedness, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the most holy.

Know and understand this: From the issuing of the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the Anointed One, the ruler, comes, there will be seven ‘sevens,’ and sixty-two ‘sevens.’ It will be rebuilt with streets and a trench, but in times of trouble. After the sixty-two ‘sevens,’ the Anointed One will be cut off and will have nothing. The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end will come like a flood: War will continue until the end, and desolations have been decreed.

Regarding this passage, note the following facts: (1) The city would be rebuilt, as would the Temple. (2) The Messiah would come. (3) The Messiah would be “cut off” (die) but not for Himself. (4) The city and the Temple would be destroyed. Note especially that the Messiah had to come and die prior to the destruction of the second temple, which occurred in A.D. 70.

Clearly, this narrows the circle of potential candidates incredibly. Is there anyone who has fulfilled all these conditions? Is there anyone who was a human being, a Jew, from the tribe of Judah and the family of David, born in Bethlehem, was despised and rejected by the Jewish people, died as a result of a judicial proceeding, was guiltless, and came and died before the destruction of the second temple in A.D. 70? Yes there was, and His name was Jesus!

To further demonstrate that Jesus fulfilled the messianic prophecies of the Old Testament, note the following facts, taken from Appendix B of my book Christ Before the Manger: The Life and Times of the Preincarnate Christ.3 These prophecies — taken together — narrow the field so much that there can be no doubt as to who the Messiah is.

MESSIANIC PROPHECIES FULFILLED IN CHRIST

From the Book of Genesis to the Book of Malachi, the Old Testament abounds with anticipations of the coming Messiah. Numerous predictions—fulfilled to the “crossing of the t” and the “dotting of the i” in the New Testament—relate to His birth, life, ministry, death, resurrection, and glory.

Some liberal scholars have attempted to argue that these prophecies were made after Jesus lived, not before. They have suggested that the books of the Old Testament were written close to the time of Christ and that the messianic prophecies were merely Christian inventions. But to make this type of claim is to completely ignore the historical evidence. Indeed, Norman Geisler and Ron Brooks point out:

Even the most liberal critics admit that the prophetic books were completed some 400 years before Christ, and the Book of Daniel by about 167 B.C. Though there is good evidence to date most of these books much earlier (some of the Psalms and earlier prophets were in the eighth and ninth centuries B.C.), what difference would it make? It is just as hard to predict an event 200 years in the future as it is to predict one that is 800 years in the future. Both feats would require nothing less than divine knowledge.4

God’s ability to foretell future events is one thing that separates Him from all the false gods. Addressing the polytheism of Isaiah’s time, God said:

• “Who then is like me? Let him proclaim it. Let him declare and lay out before me what has happened since I established my ancient people, and what is yet to come—yes, let him foretell what will come” (Isa. 44:7).

• “Do not tremble, do not be afraid. Did I not proclaim this and foretell it long ago? You are my witnesses. Is there any God besides me? No, there is no other Rock; I know not one” (Isa. 44:8).

• “…Who foretold this long ago, who declared it from the distant past? Was it not I, the LORD? And there is no God apart from me…” (Isa. 45:21).

• “I foretold the former things long ago, my mouth announced them and I made them known; then suddenly I acted, and they came to pass…. Therefore I told you these things long ago; before they happened I announced them to you so that you could not say, ‘My idols did them; my wooden image and metal god ordained them’” (Isa. 48:3, 5).

Of course, anyone can make predictions—that is easy. But having them fulfilled is another story altogether. “The more statements you make about the future and the greater the detail, the better the chances are that you will be proven wrong.”5But God was never wrong; all the messianic prophecies in the Old Testament were fulfilled specifically and precisely in the person of Jesus Christ.

Jesus often indicated to listeners that He was the specific fulfillment of messianic prophecy. For example, He made the following comments on different occasions:

• “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them” (Matt. 5:17).

• “But this has all taken place that the writings of the prophets might be fulfilled” (Matt. 26:56).

• “This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms” (Luke 24:44).

• “You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life” (John 5:39-40).

• “If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me. But since you do not believe what he wrote, how are you going to believe what I say?” (John 5:46-47).

• “Then he rolled up the scroll, gave it back to the attendant and sat down. The eyes of everyone in the synagogue were fastened on him, and he began by saying to them, ‘Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing’” (Luke 4:20-21).

An in-depth study of the messianic prophecies in the Old Testament is beyond the scope of this article. However, the chart below lists some of the more important messianic prophecies that were directly fulfilled by Jesus Christ.

Table B.1MESSIANIC PROPHECIES FULFILLED BY JESUS CHRIST

Topic Old Testament Prophecy New Testament Fulfillment in Christ

Seed of woman Genesis 3:15 Galatians 4:4

Line of Abraham Genesis 12:2 Matthew 1:1

Line of Jacob Numbers 24:17 Luke 3:23, 34

Line of Judah Genesis 49:10 Matthew 1:2

Line of Jesse Isaiah 11:1 Luke 3:23, 32

Line of David 2 Samuel 7:12-16 Matthew 1:1

Virgin Birth Isaiah 7:14 Matthew 1:23

Birthplace: Bethlehem Micah 5:2 Matthew 2:6

Forerunner: John Isaiah 40:3; Malachi 3:1, Matthew 3:3

Escape into Egypt Hosea 11:1 Matthew 2:14

Herod kills children Jeremiah 31:15 Matthew 2:16

King Psalm 2:6 Matthew 21:5

Prophet Deut 18:15-18 Acts 3:22-23

Priest Psalm 110:4 Hebrews 5:6-10

Judge Isaiah 33:22 John 5:30

Called “Lord” Psalm 110:1 Luke 2:11

Called “Immanuel” Isaiah 7:14 Matthew 1:23

Anointed by Holy Spirit Isaiah 11:2 Matthew 3:16-17

Zeal for God Psalm 69:9 John 2:15-17

Ministry in Galilee Isaiah 9:1-2 Matthew 4:12-16

Ministry of miracles Isaiah 35:5-6 Matthew 9:35

Bore world’s sins Psalm 22:1 Matthew 27:46

Ridiculed Psalm 22:7-8 Matthew 27:39, 43

Stumbling stone to Jew Psalm 118:22 1 Peter 2:7

Rejected by own people Isaiah 53:3 John 7:5, 48

Light to Gentiles Isaiah 60:3 Acts 13:47-48

Taught parables Psalm 78:2 Matthew 13:34

Cleansed the temple Malachi 3:1 Matthew 21:12

Sold for 30 shekels Zechariah 11:12 Matthew 26:15

Forsaken by disciples Zechariah 13:7 Mark 14:50

Silent before accusers Isaiah 53:7 Matthew 27:12-19

Hands and feet pierced Psalm 22:16 John 20:25

Heart broken Psalm 22:14 John 19:34

Crucified with thieves Isaiah 53:12 Matthew 27:38

No bones broken Psalm 22:17 John 19:33-36

Soldiers gambled Psalm 22:18 John 19:24

Suffered thirst on cross Psalm 69:21 John 19:28

Vinegar offered Psalm 69:21 Matthew 27:34

Christ’s prayer Psalm 22:24 Matthew 26:39

Disfigured Isaiah 52:14 John 19:1

Scourging and death Isaiah 53:5 John 19:1, 18

His “forsaken” cry Psalm 22:1 Matthew 27:46

Committed self to God Psalm 31:5 Luke 23:46

Rich man’s tomb Isaiah 53:9 Matthew 27:57-60

Resurrection Psalm 16:10; 22:22 Matthew 28:6

Ascension Psalm 68:18 Luke 24:50-53

Right hand of God Psalm 110:1 Hebrews 1:3

Any reasonable person who examines these Old Testament prophecies in an objective manner must conclude that Jesus was the promised Messiah. “If these messianic prophecies were written hundreds of years before they occurred, and if they could never have been foreseen and depended upon factors outside human control for their fulfillment, and if all of these prophecies perfectly fit the person and life of Jesus Christ, then Jesus had to be the Messiah.”6

Indeed, Christ on three different occasions directly claimed in so many words to be the “Christ.” (Note that the word Christ is the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew word Messiah.) For example, in John 4:25 Jesus encountered a Samaritan woman who said to Him, “I know that Messiah” (called Christ) “is coming….” To which Jesus replied, “I who speak to you am he” (v. 26). Later, Jesus referred to Himself in the third person, in His high priestly prayer to the Father, as “Jesus Christ, whom you have sent” (John 17:3). In Mark 14:61-62, we find the high priest asking Jesus, “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?”—to which Jesus declared unequivocally, “I am….”

Others also recognized that Jesus was the prophesied Messiah. In response to Jesus’ inquiry concerning His disciples’ understanding of Him, Peter confessed: “You are the Christ…” (Matt. 16:16). When Jesus said to Martha, “I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies; and whoever lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this?” Martha answered, “Yes, Lord…. I believe that you are the Christ…” (John 11:25-27).

Some may ask why Jesus didn’t explicitly claim more often to be the prophesied Messiah. Bible scholar Robert L. Reymond offers us some keen insights in answering this question:

Jews of the first century regarded the Messiah primarily as Israel’s national deliverer from the yoke of Gentile oppression….Had Jesus employed uncritically the current popular term as a description of Himself and His mission before divesting it of its one-sided associations and infusing it with its richer, full-orbed Old Testament meaning, which included the work of the Messiah as the Suffering Servant of Isaiah, His mission would have been gravely misunderstood and His efforts to instruct the people even more difficult. Consequently, the evidence suggests that He acknowledged He was the ‘Christ’ only where there was little or no danger of His claim being politicized — as in the case of the Samaritan woman, in private conversation with His disciples (at the same time, demanding that they tell no one that He was the Messiah), in semi-private prayer, or before the Sanhedrin when silence no longer mattered or served His purpose.7

Even if Jesus had never verbally claimed to be the prophesied Messiah, the very fact that He was the precise fulfillment of virtually hundreds of messianic prophecies cannot be dismissed, as some liberal critics have attempted. The odds against one person fulfilling all these prophecies are astronomical; indeed, it is impossible to calculate. But fulfill these prophecies, Jesus did—and then He added proof upon proof regarding His identity by the many astounding miracles He performed. Truly, Jesus is the Messiah.

]]>http://www.equip.org/article/jesus-is-the-messiah/feed/0The Messianic Congregational Movementhttp://www.equip.org/article/the-messianic-congregational-movement/
http://www.equip.org/article/the-messianic-congregational-movement/#commentsTue, 09 Jun 2009 16:03:00 +0000http://simonwebdesign.com/cri/beta/judaism/the-messianic-congregational-movement/This article first appeared in the Christian Research Journal, volume 22, number 1 (1999). For further information or to subscribe to the Christian Research Journal go to: http://www.equip.org

SYNOPSIS

Although the first Christians were Jews organized into Messianic congregations, we have no record of a specifically Jewish Christian congregation after A.D. 400. Subsequently, the ekklesia (church) was predominantly Gentile for 15 centuries, but since 1967 there has been a rapid growth of Jesus-believing Jews, who have organized themselves into Messianic congregations. Most of these new Messianic congregations, although clearly Jewish in their identity, are within the mainstream of Christian orthodoxy. Others emphasize Jewishness more than Jesus and the New Covenant, and still others are cultic. The ekklesia, still predominantly Gentile, is challenged to understand new biblical emphases in this movement, such as the celebration of traditional Jewish festivals and the practice of circumcision — and to affirm that God has not abandoned His covenant with the physical descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, who indeed as a nation (not every individual) will ultimately embrace Jesus as their Messiah and so enter the ekklesia (Rom. 11:23–26).

“Jews for Jesus!” shouts from the pages of that ancient Jewish book that we call the New Testament. “Jews for Jesus!” is also a slogan that seems new in the past 30 years. Something old, something new —Jesus-believing Jews. The Book of Acts records Jews by the thousands coming to faith in Jesus as their Messiah and informs us about that first Messianic congregation in Jerusalem — its first deacons, struggles, and persecutions.

Today Messianic congregations are growing rapidly worldwide. The Messianic Times,1 a quarterly newspaper reporting on the movement, lists Messianic congregations by state. For example, the Spring 1999 issue lists 34 in Florida and 33 in California. One observer states, “In 1967, there were no Messianic Jewish congregations in the world. Today there are 350.”2 We might define a “Messianic congregation” as an assembly of believers in Messiah Jesus — Jew and Gentile — that publicly affirms its Jewish identity. By historic Christian standards, some of these congregations are orthodox, some heterodox, and some may not be Christian at all.

The Messianic congregational movement also raises other issues, whose resolution is crucial to the health of the body of Messiah. Who is Israel? Has the church replaced Israel? Is Israel still a chosen people? Are Jewish believers obligated to keep the kosher laws and celebrate the Jewish festivals? Should Jewish believers be circumcised?

YOU CAN’T CHANGE A FISH INTO A CHICKEN

Recalling his childhood, one Jewish believer remembers his father saying repeatedly, “You can’t change a fish into a chicken!” He said that to affirm the myth that Jews cannot be Christians. Sadly, Christians first used this falsehood in the fourth century to express anti-Semitism, insisting that Jewish converts must renounce their Jewishness in order to join the church.3 As the centuries progressed, judenrein, a “cleansing” from Jewish influences, became the standard. The New Testament Letter of Jacob, for example, became the Letter of James, even though the Greek Jacobus cannot truly be translated as “James.” As the church abhorred things Jewish, the Jewish community found the “no-fish-to-chicken” myth useful in protecting itself against Christian evangelists. If a Jewish person converted, he or she was no longer considered Jewish, but rather a mushummed, a traitor to Jewish people.

Even though in postapostolic times the last specifically Jewish congregation died out about A.D. 400,4 there have always been Jewish believers in Jesus.5 Nevertheless, the recent roots of the Messianic congregational movement are found in the work of Joseph Rabinowitz, a Russian Jew who in 1882 traveled to Palestine to consider settling there. His original purpose was classic Zionism, but instead he found Jesus on the Mount of Olives.6 He returned to Kishinev in southwestern Russia as a Jewish believer in Jesus and initiated the Messianic congregational movement there, which slowly grew for many years but has exploded since 1967. That was the year the Jews recaptured Jerusalem from the Jordanians in the Six-Day War. Apart from the normal purpose of Christians under the direction of Scripture and the Holy Spirit to gather into groups, which we usually call “churches” or “congregations,” what was the motivation for Rabinowitz and other Jewish believers who imitated his ministry to gather in Messianic congregations?

The Messianic congregation helps the Jew affirm his or her Jewish identity concurrently with an affirmation of his or her trust in Messiah Jesus. Because the term Christian has traditionally connotated Gentile, some Jewish believers in Jesus will go so far as to say, “I’m not a Christian; I’m a Messianic Jew,” even though the terms essentially refer to the same faith in Jesus as Savior. A corollary phenomenon is that Jewish believers prefer to use the word “Messiah” to the linguistically identical term “Christ” — primarily because of the perpetuation of the calumny that the Jews were and continue to be Christ-killers.

The Apostolic Council (Acts 15) dealt with the issue of Gentile believers in Jesus and concluded that they did not have to become Jews to be brothers and sisters in the Messiah. Rabinowitz and others speak for a corollary conclusion of the Apostolic Council: Jews do not have to become Gentiles to be brothers and sisters in the Messiah.

JEWISH IDENTITY: BASED IN GOD OR IN ETHNIC PRIDE?

The issue of Jewish identity is crucial to the issue of the Messianic congregational movement and to the broader issue of bringing the gospel to the Jews. We will later discuss the Abrahamic Covenant, but at this point we must reiterate that Israel — the Jews — originated with God’s unconditional promise to Abram (Gen. 12:1–3, 7) that was repeated to his son Isaac (Gen. 26:1–5) and to his grandson Jacob (Gen. 28:1–17). In fact, God changed Jacob’s name to Israel (Gen. 32:28; 35:10). Exegetically, the word “Israel” in Scripture means either the man, a.k.a. Jacob, or his descendants. The word “Israel” is also linked to geography in that it occurs 21 times as “land of Israel,” including twice in the New Testament (Matt. 2:20–21). Although the term appears to be used with reference to the church once in the New Testament (the “Israel of God” in Gal. 6:16), such a spiritual usage does not generally replace a more physical understanding of the term. Rather, Paul used “Israel” to mean Messiah-believing physical descendants of the man Israel (Rom. 9:6–8), which is consistent with the frequent Old Testament use of the “remnant” of Israel. Paul set forth the same truth in a different way in Romans 2:28-29 when he said that a real Jew is one who has been circumcised in his or her heart by the Holy Spirit.

Clearly, Israel, the people, has a divine origin and were chosen in grace (Deut. 7:7–9). But did God ever reject them, and if so when? The prophet Jeremiah answered this question: “‘Only if the heavens above can be measured and the foundations of the earth below be searched out will I reject all the descendants of Israel because of all they have done,’ declares the LORD” (Jer. 31:37). Paul also posed and answered the question: “I ask then: Did God reject his people? By no means!” (Rom. 11:1). We should not, however, hold to a “two people of God” view — Israel and the church. According to Romans 11 the people of God constitute one “olive tree” rooted in Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, onto which believing Gentile “branches” are grafted and off of which unbelieving Jewish “branches” are broken. Thus we should not confuse God’s choosing of a people with individual election. It would not appear that individual members of Israel, like Korah (Num. 16) and King Ahab (1 Kings 21), experienced personal salvation, and certainly not Judas, “the one doomed to destruction” (John 17:12).

Regardless of an individual Jew’s eternal destiny, saved or damned — Paul or Judas — Israel, the Jewish people, have not been rejected by God as a people and maintain their identity. Here is no ordinary ethnic pride but a divinely designated identity that keeps bubbling up through the turmoil of history. And so the Messianic congregational movement is not just good missiological practice, good gospel contextualization, but also a living reminder that God keeps His promises.

Before examining today’s Messianic congregational movement, it is important to lay a theological foundation for evaluating the movement. Christians must dare to evaluate, in love, whether the submovements within the movement are orthodox, heterodox, or even heretical. Such an evaluation does not call us to deal with different theologies of the sacraments or views on the Millennium, but rather with the core issues of Christology, the gospel, and unity with the body of Christ. Pursuant to this aim, it is helpful to briefly examine five biblical covenants because they are frequently confused.

The Noahic Covenant was made with the world and is unconditional. Its sign is the rainbow. In this covenant God promised that He would never again destroy the world with a flood.

The Abrahamic Covenant was made with the world, through the mediator Abraham, and is also unconditional and everlasting. Its sign is circumcision of the male descendants of Abraham (Gen. 17:9–14). Circumcision is not called a requirement, but an ot (sign). The Abrahamic Covenant promised:

1. Abraham would be made into a great nation.

2. Abraham would be personally blessed.

3. The name of Abraham would become great.

4. Abraham (and his descendants) would be a blessing to others.

5. God would bless those who blessed Abraham (and his descendants) and curse those who cursed him (them).

6. All peoples on earth would be blessed through a descendant of Abraham.

7. Land would be given to Abraham’s descendants.

Through the centuries, Christians have properly identified as a Messianic prophecy the promise that “all peoples on earth will be blessed through you” (Gen. 12:3). That was clearly affirmed by Paul as part of God’s unconditional promise: “The Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: ‘All nations will be blessed through you’” (Gal. 3:8). We cannot pick and choose which of the unconditional promises given to the world through Abraham we will believe. All of the promises are a window through which we can see history through God’s perspective.

Some 430 years later (Gal. 3:17), God made a covenant with Israel at Mt. Sinai through Moses. This Mosaic Covenant had conditions: 10 commandments, five festivals, animal sacrifices, kosher food laws, Sabbath-keeping, and so on. Paul valued this covenant (Gal. 3:21) but said that its purpose was to lead people to the Messiah: “So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith” (Gal. 3:24). Hebrews 8, drawing on Jeremiah 31:31–34, reveals that Messiah Jesus has fulfilled the Mosaic Covenant, which is now obsolete. The author of Hebrews is unknown, but the audience is not. The Greek text says: pros ebraios — to Hebrews. Jewish believers were told that the Old Covenant, dear to them for 15 centuries, was now fulfilled by the Messiah.

The Davidic Covenant is unconditional. It ratifies and elaborates on portions of the Abrahamic Covenant — notably that God will establish a kingdom “forever” through a descendant of David (2 Sam. 7:4–17). Matthew began his Gospel with the words, “A record of the genealogy of Jesus Christ the son of David, the son of Abraham” (Matt. 1:1). This ties the Davidic and Abrahamic covenants together, leading us to the Jesus Covenant.

At the Passover seder immediately before His crucifixion, Jesus proclaimed His New Covenant: “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins” (Matt. 26:28). Jesus, the Jew, gives the New Covenant to the world in the context of Jewish believers. This alone suffices as a rejoinder to those who say that the Old Covenant is for the Jews and the New Covenant is for the Gentiles, the so-called “Two Covenant Theory,” which Joseph P. Gudel has biblically refuted in a previous edition of the Christian Research Journal.7

MESSIANIC CONGREGATIONS TODAY

“All of the first Christians were Jews, either by birth or by conversion, and yet within a hundred years of the report that tens of thousands ‘from the circumcision’ had believed in Jesus as Messiah, there remained only small, despised pockets of Jewish Christians, and of these a large percentage seem to have been adherents to various late-blooming hybrids of Christian teaching with that of some free-thinking individual.”8 Are today’s Messianic congregations “from the circumcision” those who continue in the Apostles’ doctrine, or are they later-blooming hybrids of Christian teaching with that of some free-thinking individuals?

In his book, Return from Exile: The Re-Emergence of the Messianic Congregational Movement, Michael Schiffman explains the understanding of Messianic congregations held by the Fellowship of Messianic Congregations (FMC): “Messianic congregations are part of the ekklesia as are all other congregations that follow the Messiah, whether Jewish or non-Jewish. Along with the rest of the body of believers, Messianic congregations embrace the concept of union between God and one another in the ekklesia.”9 Schiffman prefers not to use the word “church” because Jewish people associate “church” with numerous acts of anti-Semitism throughout the past 1,500 years.

The constitution of FMC further identifies Messianic congregations as having the following specific emphases:10

(a) expressing Jewish cultural forms at regular worship services,

(b) observing the feasts and holidays of Israel in a Messiah-centered manner,

(c) identifying with the Jewish people at large,

(d) rekindling the understanding of the inherent Jewish roots of faith in Yeshua, the promised Messiah of Israel,

(e) witnessing to the Jew first and also the non-Jew.11

No missiologist would quarrel with “expressing Jewish cultural forms at regular worship services.” We have come a long way since the pioneering days of Daniel Landsmann, a Jewish Christian evangelist who worked alongside Lutherans in New York City in the late 1800s. After Landsmann led a Jewish person to Christ, the convert had to learn German before he or she was baptized and integrated into German Lutheran parish life.12

Today’s Messianic congregations use Hebrew, altered forms of the Jewish siddur (prayer book), Davidic dance, Torah scrolls, talitoth (prayer shawls), and kippoth (skull caps) in their worship. Some are quite traditional in their worship; others utilize a freeform type of liturgy. All attempt, to a greater or lesser degree, to affirm their Jewish identity.

Concerns about “Judaizing” (binding Messianic believers to the Mosaic Law) are raised by some Christian observers regarding Messianic congregations’ worship on the Sabbath — on Friday evening or Saturday morning. If they are truly Christians, they ask, why don’t they worship on Sunday mornings like other Christians? Actually, Scripture does not specify which day on which to worship, but most Christians exercise their freedom and choose the first day of the week to honor the day Jesus rose from the dead. Schiffman comments succinctly about Mosaic Law: “While believers are not obligated to keep the Law, they have the freedom to do so.”13

Circumcision once again raises the issue of “Judaizing.” Did not Paul excoriate the Galatian Christians, “I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all” (Gal. 5:2)? Epiphanius (ca. 315-403) commented on the Nazoraioi (Nazarenes), said to be descendants of those Jerusalem believers who fled to Pella before the destruction of the city in A.D. 70. He seemed to affirm their Christology as orthodox, but he still called them heretics: “These have also erred in boasting of circumcision, and such are still ‘under a curse’ not being able to fulfill the Law.”14 Jerome in his letter to Augustine said of the Nazarenes: “They believe in Christ, the Son of God, born of Mary the virgin, and they say about him that he suffered under Pontius Pilate and rose again.”15 We do not know how the ancient Nazarenes viewed circumcision. Heresy was introduced when circumcision came to be viewed as a self-justifying “work,” not as merely a sign of an unconditional covenant with the physical descendants of Abraham. If circumcision is required, even in a Jewish context, it becomes a work of self-justification.

Abraham was the first to be circumcised, and the Scriptures say, “Abram believed the LORD, and he credited it to him as righteousness” (Gen. 15:6). Paul had his coworker, Timothy, circumcised because Timothy’s mother, Eunice, was Jewish and because affirmation of Jewish identity would be helpful in the missionary work (Acts 16:1–3). Circumcision done as a sign of God’s grace in the Abrahamic Covenant and as a mark of Jewish identity is God-pleasing. But when circumcision is claimed as a “work” or a “pedigree” to be applauded by God, that makes Christ of no value. Paul’s strong words to the Galatians concerning their observance of circumcision was in response to their seeking justification through keeping the Mosaic Law (e.g., Gal. 5:4).

Some have called the contemporary movement of Jesus-believing Jews “Messianic Judaism,” and they have said it is “the fastest growing branch of Judaism.” Baruch Maoz, a leader of the Messianic congregational movement in Israel, and pastor of Grace and Truth Congregation, warns against positioning Messianic Judaism alongside Orthodox, Conservative, Reform, and Reconstructionist Judaism. “Such a claim puts Reformed [sic], Orthodox, Conservative and other branches of Judaism on an equal par with our faith in Christ, each as being various branches of the one and same religion.”16 Jewish people who resist the Christian faith, be it Messianic Judaism or conventional Christianity, say that Christianity as the daughter of Judaism should be respectful to her mother. Schiffman exposes this argument as fallacious: “Messianic Judaism is a branch separate from the others, growing out from the root and trunk of Biblical Judaism. We are a branch parallel to the main branch of the other three, yet separate from them. We did not grow out of Pharisaic Judaism. We grew out of the Biblical Jewish faith of the prophets of Israel.”17

ASSOCIATIONS OF MESSIANIC JEWISH CONGREGATIONS AND ORGANIZATIONS

A quick search on the Internet will reveal hundreds of Web sites representing Jesus-believing Jews. One site gave 177 links, including the Fellowship of Black Messianic Hebrews, Jews for Jesus, and the Society for the Advancement of Nazarene Judaism. It is at once exciting, heartening, and alarming to see such a variety of Messianic expression. Yet how well are all these ministries and organizations “devoted … to the apostles’ teaching and to the fellowship” (Acts 2:42)?

The Lausanne Consultation on Jewish Evangelism (LCJE) is a “benchmark” organization for Jewish missions. It defines itself as “an association of agencies, congregations and individuals who are in substantial agreement with the Lausanne Covenant and are committed to Jewish evangelism worldwide and to cooperating and networking with others who share that commitment.”18 LCJE was formed in 1980 at a meeting of the Lausanne Consultation on World Evangelism (LCWE) in Pattaya, Thailand. It has grown steadily since that time and is organized into seven regions: Australia/New Zealand, South Africa, South America, North America, Japan, Europe, and Israel. LCJE publishes the LCJE Bulletin, which includes papers and worldwide Jewish evangelism news, and Mishkan, a scholarly journal.19

The Union of Messianic Jewish Congregations (UMJC) is an organization of 70 Messianic congregations located in North and South America and around the world. Their Web site (www.umjc.org) affirms that “G-d” is moving mightily among the Jews to bring them to faith in Messiah Yeshua. UMJC emphasizes a unity with Gentile Christians, citing Jesus’ words in John 17:23. The organization’s doctrinal statement includes the following:

We believe the Bible is the inspired, the only infallible, authoritative Word of G-d; We believe that there is one G-d, eternally existent in three persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; We believe in the deity of the L-RD Yeshua, the Messiah, and His virgin birth, in His sinless life, in His miracles, in His vicarious and atoning death through His shed blood, in His bodily resurrection, in His ascension to the right hand of the Father, and in His personal return in power and glory; As Jewish followers of Yeshua, we are called to maintain our Jewish biblical heritage and remain a part of our people Israel and the universal body of believers; This is part of our identity and a witness to the faithfulness of G-d.

In a position paper, titled “Why the Union Requires Shabbat Services,” UMJC states that its members “do not require Shabbat observance as a test of salvation, or as a signification of the legitimacy of a group as a New Covenant congregation.” The paper indicates, however, that Shabbat (i.e., Sabbath) services are necessary to affirm Jewish identity in the world, and as “a unique covenant sign of Israel’s place as a chosen people of G-d.”20

Founded in 1915, UMJC deemed it necessary in 1986 to organize an association of Messianic congregations, the International Association of Messianic Congregations and Synagogues (IAMCS). One of the largest congregations in IAMCS is Congregation Beth Yeshua in Philadelphia. Its doctrinal statement stands in the mainstream of Christian orthodoxy and adds, “We believe in G-d’s eternal covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. We, therefore, stand with and support the Jewish people and the State of Israel and hold fast to the Biblical heritage of our forefathers.”21

Recently UMJC has organized a “Yeshiva Institute,” which grants ordination to the Messianic rabbinate after successful completion of 17 core courses, recommendation by other recognized leaders, and proven success in a UMJC congregational setting. The Yeshiva (Jewish counterpart of seminary) has its headquarters in Omaha, but it holds courses in various places around the country.

Another important organization is the Messianic Jewish Alliance of America (MJAA), based in Springfield, Pennsylvania. Membership is open to both Jewish and non-Jewish believers in Yeshua (Jesus). There is no formal doctrinal statement, but their Web site indicates certain belief expectations for Gentile Christians: “You recognize the need and importance of the specialized Jewish testimony of the MJAA. You stand in unity with your Messianic Jewish brothers and sisters all over the world and endorse this great Messianic revival as a fulfillment of Bible prophecy. Not only do you support this Jewish revival with your prayers but you also recognize the need to do your part financially. You love the Jewish people and endorse the nation of Israel as a fulfillment of end-time Biblical prophecy.”22 MJAA does considerable work in Israel, from planting trees to supporting Messianic believers financially. The organization strongly asserts that Eretz Yisrael (Land of Israel) belongs to the Jews and also teaches that Romans 11:25–32 is to be understood as the conversion of the Jews in the end times. Neither of these two interpretations of Scripture violates historic orthodox Christianity, although they may conflict with traditionally held views in some denominations.

A third association is the Messianic Israel Alliance, formed by Messianic Israel Ministries of St. Cloud, Florida, also known as “House of David.” A key person in this group is Batya Ruth Wootten, and in her book Who Is Israel? she strictly identifies “Israel” as the ekklesia, which she defines as “the true believers in Messiah Jesus,” but comprised solely of Ephraim and Judah.23 She says the phrase “Gentile Christian” is an oxymoron.24 The context of Romans 11 is ignored, and “Gentile” becomes simply a now-identified Ephraimite, that is, a person from one of the 10 lost tribes of ancient Israel. This is not only theological elitism but also heresy — ignoring Isaiah 56:6–7 and the Holy Spirit-guided work of the Apostolic Council (Acts 15), which concluded that Gentiles (i.e., non-Israelites), too, can be part of the ekklesia when they believe in Messiah Jesus.

The Messianic Israel Alliance “places no doctrinal demands or practice requirements on member congregations, fellowships or home groups. However, the alliance does encourage the observance of the Sabbath and of the Feasts of Yahveh as the Spirit leads.”25 Their Web site lists a membership of 87 groups in the United States and eight overseas.

House of David not only appears to exclude Gentiles but also hints that in the end times the Messianic believers can expect an organized “church system” to persecute true believers.26 Wootten’s theology appears to be legalistic and focused more on ethnic purity than on the Messiah. Although the Messianic Israel Alliance asks no doctrinal commitment, “membership” opens groups up to the influence of House of David’s mixture of biblical and unbiblical teachings.

CULTS AND “LOOK-ALIKES”

Space prohibits a comprehensive examination of Messianic cults and “look-alikes” — groups that purport to be Jewish but are not. It is helpful to examine three such groups, which are really not in the mainstream of the Messianic congregational movement. These new groups can be compared with something old: the Ebionites, a Judaistic cult of post-Apostolic times, which emphasized the humanity of Jesus and the keeping of the Law.27 Contrasting the Nazarenes, previously mentioned, with the Ebionites, Ray Pritz writes: “Ebionism was not the direct heir of the Jewish apostolic church; it was at best only third generation, and to reconcile its doctrines with those of the New Testament requires no small amount of mental gymnastics.”28

The Assemblies of Yahweh out of Bethel, Pennsylvania, gives the appearance of being Jewish, but it gives little evidence that Jewish people are part of the group. Their statements on keeping the Jewish festivals of Leviticus 23 go beyond the conviction of today’s Messianic believers into legalism: “We affirm that obedience to the commandments of Almighty Yahweh includes observing and keeping holy His commanded observances of Leviticus 23 and Numbers 28–29.” The Holy Spirit is defined as “the mighty power from the Heavenly Father and the Messiah dwelling with us,” and, “We find the Trinitarian doctrine to be foreign to the inspired Scriptures.” Jesus is called the Son of YAHWEH, Savior and Messiah. The Assemblies of Yahweh affirm “that He pre-existed with the Father,” that he is a man who lived a sinless life, and that he was raised from the dead on the third day. It is unclear whether they believe Jesus is Deity, equal to the Father. Among numerous laws that must be kept are “clean meats” and the use of “anointing with oil in the Name of Yahweh and in the Name of Yahshua the Messiah for healing of illness.” The Assemblies of Yahweh adulterate the gospel: “Yahweh has extended grace (unmerited kindness or mercy) to all who keep His law.”29

The group Twelve Tribes (not to be confused with the “Twelve Tribes” sect of Rastafarianism, see Effective Evangelism, p. 8) has a core teaching of unity, as expressed in its name, which is taken from Paul’s testimony before King Agrippa (Acts 26:7). According to their Web site’s “Who We Are” page, “We are a spiritual brotherhood whose love for one another stretches across the boundaries of nationality, race, and culture…. We sometimes speak of ourselves as Messianic communities, for we live in the hope of Messiah and are being made ready for Him.”30 I phoned their toll-free number (888-893-5838) and spoke with one of the members. He said their identity and heritage is Jewish and that one or two of the leaders are Jewish.

Their doctrinal statements appear to be Trinitarian. The Messiah is Yahshua (a.k.a. “Jesus” by denominational churches), who is eternal Creator, the Son of God, who lived a sinless life for us, died for our sins, and was raised from the dead by the Holy Spirit. The call for a holy life appears to be gospel-motivated: “It is out of love for Him who first loved us that we live as we do, no longer for ourselves, but for Him who died and rose again for us (2 Cor. 5:14–15).”31

As with many exclusivist sects, their emphasis on unity seems to be on their terms only. They teach that communal living is an essential feature of Christian faith, and there is a high degree of antidenominationalism in their literature. Yet it is their view of man’s eternal destiny that casts the biggest shadow of heterodoxy on this group. Their exegesis of Matthew 25:31–40 portrays three categories of humankind: the wicked (the “goats,” cast into the lake of fire), the non-Christian righteous (the “sheep” who will have a kingdom based on their merits), and Yahshua’s brothers (the Holy City has been prepared for them).32 This teaching on eternal destiny distorts Scripture, adding a category that is not there, teaching the heresy of justification by works for the second group, and possibly blunting attempts to share the gospel — if we decide that we are speaking to one of the “sheep” of Matthew 25:31–46. And if Jesus Himself said that these righteous “sheep” have eternal life, why should they bother to trust the Messiah? The Twelve Tribes’s exegesis of this passage fatally compromises the gospel of grace.

Lion and Lamb Ministries of Norman, Oklahoma, does not appear to be a “look- alike,” but a Messianic Jewish ministry with the following as its mission statement: “To teach the Torah and strengthen our faith and obedience in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. To present the Messiah Yeshua as the King of Israel and ourselves as his Bondservants. To encourage the believers of Messiah Yeshua by the observance of the Sabbath and the Biblical festivals. To provide prophetic insight and understanding concerning the return of Yeshua the Messiah to the earth. To prepare the saints of God both Jew and Gentile for the events of the Great Tribulation and the last years of this age.”33

Although presenting Yeshua (Jesus) as the biblical Messiah, this group has strong legalistic tendencies, and its focus does not appear to be on the gospel, but on end-time events, such as the Anti-Christ, the tribulation, and the millennial kingdom. Their leader, Monte Judah, falsely predicted that the Abomination of Desolation prophesied in the Bible would occur by March of 1997, for which he apologized. Monte Judah suggests today that Prince Charles of Wales may be the antimessiah. Their monthly newsletter is Yavoh, which means He is Coming. On the recommended books list of their Web site is Who Is Israel? previously mentioned in this article. Lion and Lamb Ministries should not to be confused with Texas-based Lamb and Lion Ministries.

FORWARD INTO THE NEW MILLENNIUM

The religious Jewish community views with increasing alarm the growing numbers of Jewish people who believe that Jesus is the Messiah. Believing a falsehood (that Jews who become Christians are no longer Jews), they see Jewish evangelism as an intellectual holocaust. Antimissionary organizations such as Rabbi Tovia Singer’s “Outreach Judaism” have been formed in order to counter Christian evangelism.

The Christian community welcomes the newly revived movement of Jesus-believing Jews, but it is necessary to raise several cautionary flags. For one thing, some Messianic groups may be cults, and others — to a greater or lesser degree — may emphasize Jewishness more than the Jewish Messiah, Jesus. A particularly egregious example is the position of Mr. Tsvi Sadan, a member of the International Coordinating Committee of LCJE. Sadan has publicly denied the doctrine of the Trinity and the deity of Jesus — contrary to the doctrinal position of LCJE.34

Moreover, Christians (who are mostly Gentile) may improperly react to some new biblical emphases in this movement:

1. Celebration of traditional Jewish festivals and the Sabbath may be followed, not because of law, but because of choice in order to contextualize the Gospel and affirm Jewish identity.

2. The practice of circumcision by Messianic believers may be done validly not as an act of obedience to law, but as an expression of God’s sign associated with the Abrahamic Covenant and Jewish identity.

3. The Church has not abrogated physical Israel’s identity, which is permanent and based on the Abrahamic Covenant.

4. Individual Jewish people are not saved by being members of a chosen people. Like everyone else, they need to hear the good news of Messiah Jesus and experience regeneration by the power of the Holy Spirit (John 14:6). The gospel must be proclaimed to the Jews.

Messianic congregations are indeed “something old.” Jesus-believing Jews were the major players in the New Testament, and continued until Nazarene Christianity disappeared about 400 A.D. Almost dead for centuries, the “something old” has been renewed today in “something new” — the Messianic congregational movement. And so the hope of the ancient Nazarene Christians, that Jews would one day turn away from tradition and towards Jesus, as expressed in their “Isaiah Commentary,” has been realized: “O Sons of Israel, who deny the Son of God with such hurtful resolution, return to him and to his apostles.”35

NOTES

1. Circulation is approximately 30,000, a nonprofit ministry supported by the monthly gifts of readers.

2. Although 1967 marks the beginning of a worldwide escalation of Messianic congregations, David Sedaca points not only to Joseph Rabinowitz’s work in Kishinev, Moldavia, at the turn of the century but also to the first Hebrew Christian church in Buenos Aires, Argentina, in 1936. See “The Rebirth of Messianic Judaism,” The Death of Messiah, ed. Kai Kjaer-Hansen (Baltimore: Lederer, 1994), 108.

11. Ibid, 39-40. Jewish people resent being targeted, and it is better to say they are “not being discriminated against” in that Messiah Jesus is for Jew and Gentile alike.

12. F. Dean Lueking, Mission in the Making (St. Louis: Concordia, 1964). The chapter “One Man’s Labor among the Jews,” 159–73, describes how Landsmann led 37 Jewish people to the Messiah in 13 years in behalf of the denomination, which is now known as The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod.

13. Schiffman, 90. “Shabbat can be observed in a way that lifts up Yeshua, the Lord of Shabbat. Yom Kippur, the day of Atonement, becomes a day of thanksgiving for Messianic Jews because there is full atonement in the sacrifice of Messiah…Likewise, circumcision is practiced by Messianic Jews, not because it imputes righteousness but because we are the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and this is the sign of God’s promise for all generations.”

14. Pritz, 34. Acts 24:5 describes how the Jewish hierarchy brought charges against Paul. The prosecuting lawyer, Tertullus, told Governor Felix: “We found this man to be a troublemaker, stirring up riots among the Jews all over the world. He is a ringleader of the Nazarene sect…” Epiphanius locates the Nazarenes in Beroea, Syria, the region of Pella, and in Basanitis.

20. Web site: www.UMJC.org/documents. Frequently in Jewish writings the English words “God” or “Lord” are spelled as “G-d” or “L-rd.” As a way of keeping the commandment, “Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain” (Exod. 20:7) religious Jews have traditionally hesitated to pronounce the authentic name of God — and have substituted names like Adonai and HoShem (“The Name”). In the last few decades a new practice has come into vogue — that of not writing out in full the English names for “God” or “Lord.”

34. Personal correspondence, Rev. Joseph Gudel. Members of LCJE must be in agreement with the Lausanne Covenant that identifies Jesus Christ as “the only God-man” and that says: “We affirm our belief in the one-eternal God, Creator and Lord of the world, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.”

35. Pritz, 110.

]]>http://www.equip.org/article/the-messianic-congregational-movement/feed/0What Is Kabbalah?http://www.equip.org/article/what-is-kabbalah/
http://www.equip.org/article/what-is-kabbalah/#commentsWed, 08 Apr 2009 18:14:00 +0000http://simonwebdesign.com/cri/beta/judaism/what-is-kabbalah/Kabbalah is the name of an occult philosophy and theosophy that developed among Jews in Babylonia, and later Italy, Provence, and Spain, between the sixth and thirteenth centuries A.D.

What is Kabbalah- What does “Kabbalah” mean?

The word “Kabbalah” means “to receive,” and refers to heavenly revelation received by Jews and passed on to succeeding generations through oral tradition. At first it was used by the mainstream of Judaism, but eventually it became identified with those who believed that the Kabbalah was an esoteric, occultic tradition that explained the true meaning of the Hebrew Scriptures, which was kept hidden from the masses and only made known to those who were spiritually ready to receive it.

What Is Kabbalah- The Philosophy

The most basic philosophical presupposition behind Kabbalah is that the world is an emanation of the spiritual essence of God. God, or “En Sof” (Endless One) is infinite and transcendent, and could make no direct contact with finite beings. The finite creation came into existence when the En Sof voluntarily limited Himself by allowing Himself to become manifest through attributes or emanation (called Sephiroth), listed as Crown, Wisdom, Intelligence, Greatness, Strength, Beauty, Firmness, Spendor, Foundation, and Sovereignty. Each emanation would be further removed from the En Sof, and thus further from God’s perfection and transcendence. The Sephiroth would be repeated on four different levels, and these realms, according to descent, were called: “Atziluth” (the world of the supernals, or heavenless), “Briah” (the world of creation), “Yetzirah” (the world of formation), and “Assiah” (the world of material action). Taking on a personal form, these Sephiroth, as angels, served as intermediaries between God and man.

Kabbalah is classically divided into two systems: theoretical and practical. The theoretical is concerned with theosophical speculation upon God and His attributes, such as what is described above. The practical is concerned with bringing what has been theorized into the realm of everyday experience. This is attempted through prayer, ascetic practices, and the employment of various occult means, such as numerology, talismans, amulets, and incarnation of divine names and words.

Intrinsic to Kabbalah is the belief that Scripture is inspired, not only in its obvious interpretations, but even to the degree that, through the use of occult symbol interpretation, one could find hidden meaning in the very numerical and alphabetical interpretation of the texts. Thus, the doctrine of the Kabbalah was derived through study of the Old Testament, albeit, only after occultic interpretative methods had been applied to it.

What Is Kabbalah?- A Historical PerspectiveTo give you an historical perspective, Kabbalah grew out of two basic needs in the Jewish consciousness. Because they had rejected their Messiah, God temporarily rejected the Jewish nation (Luke 13:35), and so, in the centuries that followed, there were no prophets; there was no immediate manifestation of God’s presence among the Jewish people. This left them feeling that God was far away and removed from them and made them more prone to be influenced by the philosophical climate of the people in whose lands they dwelt. The overwhelming philosophical influence in areas where Kabbalah began was Greek; Neo-Platonism and its “Christian” offshoot, Gnosticism. These Platonic philosophies had a very transcendent view of God: He is infinite and far removed from any conceivable contact with man. As the Jew assumed an increasingly transcendent view of God, he needed to reconcile this with the traditional Hebrew belief in the immanence and accessibility of God to man. This need seemed to be met best through the doctrine of the Sephiroth, the groundwork of which had already been laid by the Gnostics, and Philo of Alexandria, a Jewish philosopher and contemporary of Christ.

A second reason for Kabbalah’s emergence was that by around the twelfth century, Talmudic legalism, ritualism, and intellectual slavery had reached its peak (the Talmud is the body of writings that seeks the interpret the Law of God contained in Jewish Scripture). Kabbalah became popular because it opened up an approach to religion that seemed more pleasurable, immediate, and less confining.

What Is Kabbalah- The Christian Response

What is the Christian response to Kabbalah? This is an important question because in today’s “occult revolution” where all dimensions of the occult are being probed, there has been a revived interest in Cabala among both Jew and Gentile. Although its Jewish origin makes it unique, Kabbalah is still essentially an occultic system, and thus must be classified among all other occultic systems as being incompatible with the historic Judaeo-Christian faiths. Its theology is essentially pantheistic in that it teaches that all reality springs directly from God’s own essence. Even if one believes that these emanations from God’s essence have gone through a descent of ten spheres on four different levels, the conclusion is inescapable that even the being on the lowest level is still of one essence with God; and thus, ultimately, he is God. Such a concept is incompatible with the biblical God, who created the world out of nothing, not out of Himself (Gen. 1:1. The Hebrew word for “create” is “bara,” which indicates something coming out of nothing.

Although Kabbalists’ insistence upon the inspiration of Scripture in its literal form was commendable, their carrying this point to the extent of seeking to find hidden meaning in its numerical arrangements was unwarranted. Depending upon one’s assumptions, one may apply Kabbalistic methods to almost any piece of literature and draw almost any interpretation from it. Kabbalistic method of interpretation is neither acknowledged in the Bible, nor justified by it. The application of this method of the Bible had produced interpretations that are not supported by Scripture, and, in fact, are something directly opposed to it, in its obvious context.

In my years of research in comparative religions I have become persuaded that essentially there are only two metaphysical interpretations of reality available to us: the Biblical and the occultic. In seeking to support the inspiration of Scripture, the Jewish Kabbalists applied to it a method of interpretation foreign to Scripture, but familiar to the occult, and thus these Jews slipped over from a Biblical understanding of reality to an occultic one.

Many Christian and Jewish groups accept a teaching today, first taught by Franz Rosenzweig earlier this century, that there are two separate but equal covenants or ways to God. The New Testament rejects this, asserting that the gospel of Jesus Christ is for all people. The apostle Paul summarized this in his letter to the Romans: “I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile” (Rom. 1:16). The quintessential form of anti-Semitism is refusing to share the gospel with Jewish people.

In Paul’s letter to the Romans the apostle paints for us a graphic visual picture. Imagine for a moment seeing millions and millions of people, standing in a long line. They are of different ages, male and female, some very young and others very old.

As we look at them, we see that they are all carrying Bibles under their arms or in their hands. Many of these Bibles evidently are well read, marked and worn from usage. In fact, an incalculable number of these people have large portions of their Bibles memorized, some entire sections or books.

Imagine also that these people are very faithful in attending church, worshiping regularly and tithing, and are active not only in their churches but also in their communities. Many, if not most of these individuals, live exemplary lives. And then, imagine seeing all these people — in a line that goes on and on as far as the eye can see — walking into the eternal flames of hell with Bibles in their hands!

This image conveys an idea of what Paul was experiencing as he wrote to the church in Rome. In an extremely personal and moving section, he spoke of his fellow Israelites, the Jewish people, in these words: “I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, those of my own race, the people of Israel…Brothers, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for the Israelites is that they may be saved” (Rom. 9:2–4; 10:1).

QUESTIONS RELATING TO PAUL’S MESSAGE

Numerous questions exist today in the field of comparative religions and missiology. This is especially true when it comes to discussions concerning Christianity and Judaism.

Many Christian theologians today, as well as many different and disparate Christian denominations, question the need to share the gospel with Jewish people. In fact, many consider attempts at Jewish evangelization to be insensitive and judgmental. For example, in a publication of the Lutheran Council in the USA, distributed by the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA), Eric Gritsch states:

There really is no need for any Christian mission to the Jews. They are and remain the people of God, even if they do not accept Jesus Christ as their Messiah. Why this is so only God knows. Christians should concentrate their missionary activities on those who do not yet belong to the people of God, and they should court them with a holistic witness in word and deed rather than with polemical argument and cultural legislation. The long history of Christian anti-Semitism calls for repentance, not triumphalist claims of spiritual superiority.1

The claim that the Jewish people do not need to know and receive Jesus as their Lord and Savior, as their Messiah, is an extraordinary one that invites a critical response. Yet, before criticizing those who make such a claim, we should at least be conversant with what they are saying and why they are saying it. Thus, while the purpose of this article is to present the biblical basis for sharing the gospel with the Jewish people, we will begin with an overview of what this “two covenant” theology is, its historical roots, and the reasons why many Jewish and Christian groups accept this view today.

Franz Rosenzweig and the Origins of Two Covenant Theology

In virtually every historical work examining the factors that have influenced modern Jewish-Christian relations, the person of Franz Rosenzweig (1886–1929) is prominent. Rosenzweig’s tenets were like the proverbial boulder that began an avalanche. The boulder was an idea, a hypothesis, that has created an avalanche in the history of ideas, particularly in the history of religion. Just as avalanches begin slowly, picking up speed, energy, and mass — so too with Rosenzweig’s “two covenant” theory of atonement.

Franz Rosenzweig first put forth the two covenant theory, as it is commonly referred to, shortly after the First World War in a work entitled The Star of Redemption. His theology of the two covenants came about through a long series of discussions with a friend of his, a Hebrew Christian philosopher of religion, Eugen Rosenstock-Huessy.

At one point, Rosenzweig was on the verge of becoming a convert to Christianity. Raised in Cassel, Germany in a largely assimilated Jewish household, he decided to attend a Yom Kippur (Day of Atonement) service in Berlin first, determining that “he would enter Christianity through Judaism. Like the earliest Christians, he would only enter as a Jew and not as a pagan.”2

Instead of becoming a Christian, Rosenzweig became fascinated with his religious roots. Concerning this, Nahum Glatzer writes: “What the day [Yom Kippur] conveyed to him was that essential as a mediator may be in the Christian experience, the Jew stands in no need of mediation. God is near to man and desires his undeviated devotion.”3

The two covenant theory of salvation, which Rosenzweig would subsequently develop, basically states that God has established two different but equally valid covenants, one with His people Israel and the other with the Gentiles. The Covenant in Moses and the Covenant in Jesus are complementary to each other. Glatzer quotes Rosenzweig on this as follows:

Christianity acknowledges the God of the Jews, not as God but as “the Father of Jesus Christ.” Christianity itself cleaves to the “Lord” because it knows that the Father can be reached only through him….We are all wholly agreed as to what Christ and his church mean to the world: no one can reach the Father save through him. No one can reach the Father! But the situation is quite different for one who does not have to reach the Father because he is already with him. And this is true of the people of Israel (though not of individual Jews).4

And so there are two ways of salvation, one for the Jewish people and another one for the Gentiles.

Glatzer continues, explaining Rosenzweig’s thought with the following quotation from him: “The synagogue, which is immortal but stands with broken staff and bound eyes, must renounce all this work in the world, and muster all her strength to preserve her life and keep herself untainted by life. And so she leaves the work in the world to the church and recognizes the church as the salvation for all heathens in all time.”5 Concerning this, Rabbi Jakob J. Petuchowski stated, “Rosenzweig conceded more than any Jew, while remaining a Jew, had conceded before him. He admitted the truth of John 14:6.” This is immediately qualified, though, by the assertion that “the Jew does not have to come to the Father. He has been with the Father ever since Sinai.”6

Jewish Writers on the Two Covenant Theory

Space will not allow for a thorough survey of Jewish writers on this. It is sufficient to say that this belief in two separate covenants is widely held by many Jewish people today. Arthur Gilbert states: “Judaism allows for religious pluralism and does not consider it scandalous….We do not believe that God’s plan for salvation requires your conversion to Judaism nor mine to Christianity. But it does require our cooperation, our concern for, our joint effort to repair the world.”7

Leon Klenicki, formerly the associate director of the Anti-Defamation League’s Department of Interfaith Affairs, expands on this in an essay discussing Jewish-Christian dialogue: “The dialogue involves a process of meeting and recognition between two faith communities, two experiences of God: Christianity and Judaism. It is an encounter of subjects, not faith, not objects of contempt, two equal testimonies to God. For each partner it means the recognition of the other as a constituent in God’s design, the acceptance of a different approach to the Eternal, a different though not conflicting spirituality.”8

Renowned Orthodox rabbi Pinchas Lapide summarizes this new view of co-equal and complementary faiths, living side by side together: “We Jews and Christians are joined in brotherhood at the deepest level….We are brothers in a manifold ‘elective affinity.’”9

Christians and the Two Covenant Theory

Just as with Jewish writers, there are numerous Christians who believe in a theology of two covenants. Such views usually come from certain mainline denominations, none of which have retained belief in the full inerrancy and authority of the Bible. For example, Carl Braaten writes: “Christianity is the Judaizing of the pagans. The task of Christianity is to preach the gospel among the Gentiles….The task of Judaism meanwhile is to remind Christianity of its original biblical roots.”10

Similarly, many Roman Catholic theologians have taken the pronouncements of Vatican II and Pope John Paul II’s Redemptoris Missio (1991) to their logical conclusion, viz., that religious dialogue with members of other religions is to replace actual missionary efforts: “Former Christian considerations of Judaism (as well as of other religions) encouraged proselytism. That is, Christians believed it not only legitimate but praiseworthy to exert economic, psychological, or spiritual pressure on non-Christians in order to gain new members for the Church. The dialogical position, however, is one in which the parties accept one another as mutually equal partners.”11

This position, however, is also increasingly being found among Christians who accept and believe in the Bible as the Word of God. For example, George Sheridan, who at the time was the East Coast Regional Director for the Southern Baptist department of Interfaith Witness, asserted that God’s bond with the Jewish people was never superseded with the coming of Jesus: “The Jews of today, as ever, receive salvation through their having been chosen by God in covenant with Abraham, Moses, and the prophets….My position is that the Jews do not require evangelization.”12

A BIBLICAL ANALYSIS

At this point, it is essential to return to Scripture and see if there is any biblical foundation for a theology of two separate but equal covenants. I believe even a brief examination will show us that there is not. In doing this, we will look at Jesus’ example, the practice of the apostles, and the practice of Paul.

Before looking at these, however, perhaps the best place to begin our examination of two covenant theology is with Paul’s opening declaration in Romans 1:16: “I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile.”

Many wonder why Paul would begin his message with an assertion that he was not ashamed of the gospel. Different answers have been given, the most cogent, in my opinion, being that proposed by former Concordia Seminary professor Martin H. Franzmann: “Why should Paul speak, even negatively, of being ashamed of the Gospel, which gives his life its content, purpose and direction? He is probably recalling Jesus’ words of warning, ‘Whoever is ashamed of me and my words, of him will the Son of man be ashamed when he comes in glory’ (Luke 9:26).”13 Concerning this, in his letter to young Timothy the apostle Paul writes: “For God did not give us a spirit of timidity, but a spirit of power, of love and of self-discipline. So do not be ashamed to testify about our Lord, or ashamed of me his prisoner” (2 Tim. 1:7–8).

But what did Paul mean when he stated that the gospel was the power of God “for the salvation of everyone who believes”? Perhaps an illustration will help us understand more fully. A number of years ago an evangelical attempt at piquing people’s curiosity, and thus enabling Christians to share the gospel message with non-Christians, was developed by putting bumper stickers on cars that said, “I Found It!” When people saw this, they were supposed to ask what it was the driver had “found.” In response to this, some Jewish groups countered with their own bumper sticker, which stated, “We Never Lost It!”

This is the crux of the problem. Who is Jesus, and how is one “saved”? I believe for many, if not most, Christians today the entire concept of salvation has dulled. It is almost as if we take salvation for granted. The urgency of our salvation and the unspeakable eternal consequences of being cut off from God are obscurred in our minds.

This was not so with Paul’s readers, as Franzmann makes clear: “The word ‘salvation’ is for us a worn coin; for Paul and his readers, fresh from their Old Testament, it still had a sharp image and a clear superscription. It meant radical deliverance out of a desperate situation. What Israel had experienced at the Red Sea, when all help was cut off before and behind and only a vertical miracle from on high could save, that was salvation.”14

The apostle tells us that this salvation message was “first for the Jew, then for the Gentile” (Rom. 1:16). There have been two main understandings or interpretations of what Paul meant here by the term proton (English: first). The first understanding or interpretation is that Paul was merely referring to first in a chronological sense. Concerning the usage of first and whether this meant that the Jews have a “special preference in salvation,” Swedish theologian Anders Nygren writes, “Does this after all mean that the Jew has special preference in salvation? That cannot be what Paul means. The word may refer to Israel’s special history. In that case their priority is now abolished with the coming of Christ. ‘There is neither Jew nor Greek.’ All are one in Christ Jesus (Gal. 3:28)….Thus the priority of the Jew is abolished.”15

The great theologian Charles Hodge echoes this, saying that Paul’s usage of first in this verse “must have reference to time, ‘To the Jew in the first instance, and then to the Greek.’”16

The second understanding or interpretation of what Paul means here is that first has reference not only chronologically but also in the sense of a priority. C. E. B. Cranfield’s commentary on Romans explains this as a tension between the equality all Christians have in common, and yet a special calling or place for the Jew in God’s church: “The word te…is suggestive of the fundamental equality of Jew and Gentile in the face of the gospel (the gospel is the power of God unto salvation for believing Jew and believing Gentile alike), while the word proton indicates that within the framework of this basic equality there is a certain undeniable priority of the Jew. In view of chapters nine to eleven it is hardly admissible to explain this proton as referring merely to the historical fact that the gospel was preached to the Jews before it was preached to the Gentiles.”17 Of great import here, Cranfield asserts, is Romans 11:29: “For God’s gifts and his call are irrevocable.”

Along with this verse, the theologians who believe that proton refers to a priority will usually cite two other passages, Romans 2:9 and Acts 13:46. In Romans 2:9, Paul was referring to the coming judgment, stating, “There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first [proton] for the Jew, then for the Gentile.” I do not know of any commentators who exegete first here in a temporal sense.

This exegesis is supported further when one looks at a number of passages, especially Acts 13:13–52. In this account, Paul and Barnabas entered the synagogue in Pisidian Antioch, where Paul eloquently shared the gospel with the people gathered there (13:13ff.). When the Jewish people eventually rejected the gospel, Paul and Barnabas responded very forthrightly: “We had to speak the word of God to you first. Since you reject it and do not consider yourselves worthy of eternal life, we now turn to the Gentiles” (v. 46; here and in subsequent Scripture quotations, the emphases are added).

Christianity’s Core

As the entire New Testament demonstrates, Christianity is — at its very core — a missionary faith. The Christian’s command from the very beginning was to go and “make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you” (Matt. 28:19–20). Indeed, this is seen in Jesus’ very last words to His disciples, as He departed into heaven: “And you will be witnesses to me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth” (Acts 1:8).

After Pentecost this command was taken literally, as the early church turned Jerusalem upside-down. Concerning this, David Bosch writes, “Mass conversions of the Jews are again and again reported, particularly of Jews in Jerusalem…in Acts 2:41, three thousand Jews are converted; in 4:4 there are five thousand; in 5:14 ‘multitudes of both men and women’ are added; in 6:7 the number of the disciples in Jerusalem has ‘multiplied greatly’; in 21:20 Paul is informed about ‘many thousands’…of believing Jews.”18

Jesus and the Jewish People

In Jesus’ ministry we see numerous situations in which He came “to the Jew first.” At the very beginning of John’s Gospel account, we are told that Jesus “came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive Him” (John 1:11). He ministered to and among the Jewish people (e.g., Matt. 4:23–25; 9:35).

It was only in unusual circumstances that Jesus ministered to non-Jewish people (e.g., the Syrophoenician woman in Mark 7 and the Roman centurion’s servant in Matthew 8). The primary principle was to go first to the people of Israel. Thus, when Jesus sent out the twelve apostles, He told them, “Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel” (Matt. 10:5–6).

This command to go to the Jewish people is seen likewise in our Lord’s commands after His resurrection. As before, the apostles are to go out among the Jewish people with the message of salvation in Jesus the Messiah. But a new note is added; that is, they also are to spread this message beyond the confines of the Jewish people and take it to the Gentiles as well. Their command was, “beginning at Jerusalem” to take the message out to all people and to all nations, both to the Jew and to the Greek (i.e., the Gentiles; cf., Matt. 28:18–20; Luke 24:46–47; Acts 1:8).

The Apostles and the Jewish People

I believe we see in the practice of the apostles a paradigm of missions for the entire church. In the very first preaching of the gospel after Jesus’ departure, we find the apostle Peter boldly proclaiming the good news of salvation in the midst of a Jewish audience. Acts 2:5 tells us that there were “Jews from every nation” present. In fact, he addressed his message specifically to the Jewish people: “Fellow Jews and all of you who live in Jerusalem…” and “Men of Israel, listen to this” (2:14, 22). Furthermore, he concluded his message with the bold and challenging words: “Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ” (2:36). Apparently, according to our modern sensitivities, Peter was unaware that he was being offensive to some of the Jewish people by telling them that they needed to repent and receive Jesus as their Lord and Messiah.

This same pattern of preaching to the Jewish people is followed consistently throughout the Book of Acts (e.g., the apostles with Jewish people in the Temple in 3:11–26; the apostles before the “rulers, elders and teachers of the law” in 4:5ff., with a special emphasis on vv. 10–12 [cf., John 14:6]; the apostles before the full Sanhedrin in 5:27ff.; Stephen before the Sanhedrin in ch. 7). It is not until Acts 10 that we find any attempt to begin taking the gospel to anyone other than Jewish people, and this took several miraculous interventions from God before it occurred. In fact, immediately after Peter brought the gospel to Cornelius and his household, he was criticized for sharing the message of salvation with Gentiles (Acts 11:1–2)!

It was only very slowly and reluctantly that the early church began fulfilling Jesus’ command to bring the gospel to people other than Jews. Finally, after the great council of Jerusalem reported in Acts 15, Paul, Barnabas, Judas, and Silas were sent out with instructions for the Gentile believers (vv. 19–21).

Paul and the Jewish People

Ironically, perhaps the supreme New Testament example of an apostle bringing the news of Jesus Christ to Jewish people is from the “apostle to the Gentiles,” Paul (Rom. 11:13). We saw above the account of Paul and Barnabas entering into the synagogue in Pisidian Antioch and sharing the gospel with the Jewish people there (Acts 13). As we noted, the Jews rejected Jesus, not considering themselves “worthy of eternal life” (13:46).

Yet it remained the apostle’s normal methodology to bring the gospel to the Jewish people first, before continuing on with the Gentiles. Thus we find in Acts 14:1 that “at Iconium Paul and Barnabas went as usual to the Jewish synagogue.” Moreover, we are told that they “spent considerable time there” (v.3).

From the very beginning Paul did take the gospel to the Jewish people first (e.g., Acts 9:20–22, 26–29). This pattern continued throughout his lifetime of ministry.

This is evident throughout Paul’s writings. First, he emphasized that apart from knowing their Messiah, the Jewish people were cut off from God and from their covenant with Him. For example, in his second letter to the Corinthians, he writes:

We are not like Moses, who would put a veil over his face to keep the Israelites from gazing at it while the radiance was fading away. But their minds were made dull, for to this day the same veil remains when the old covenant is read. It has not been removed, because only in Christ is it taken away. Even to this day when Moses is read, a veil covers their hearts. But whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. (2 Cor. 3:13–16)

Second, Paul continually asked that prayers be offered up for the Jewish people, that they might repent and be brought back into a relationship with God — that is, that they might receive Jesus as their Lord and God, as their long-awaited Messiah.

This is especially evident in Romans 9–11. In Romans 9:1–5, Paul eloquently wrote of how the Jewish people were elected by God in the past, and yet the adoption, the covenants, the Law, the temple worship, and the promises were all to no avail — for they rejected their own Messiah.

Apparently unaware of any “two covenant” theory, Paul again urged that prayers be made for them: “Brothers, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for the Israelites is that they may be saved. For I can testify about them that they are zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge” (Rom. 10:1–2).

He concluded that although the Jewish people are cut off for now, God has not totally rejected them. God still has plans for them, and they would yet receive Jesus (Rom. 11).

Much more could be said concerning this, but it is sufficient for our purposes to see that throughout the New Testament the Jewish people are always referred to as people who need to know and receive Jesus Christ. In this concern they are no different than any of the Gentiles.

Quintessential Anti-Semitism

As much as one might like to agree with those promulgating a theology of two covenants, it simply is not a biblical doctrine. Quite to the contrary, it goes against everything that we find in the New Testament relating to missions. In fact, this is the quintessential form of anti-Semitism, for in promoting this false doctrine the only way of salvation is closed to the Jewish person (John 14:6; Acts 4:12). Nothing could be more dangerous, racist, or pernicious than this.

As we’ve seen, the apostle Paul boldly affirmed, “I am not ashamed of the gospel of Jesus Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek” (Rom. 1:16). We are not to be ashamed of sharing the good news of the gospel with anyone. In that this good news came through the children of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and in that “salvation is from the Jews” (John. 4:22), this message was “for the Jew first.”

It seems that this is almost completely forgotten today. The gospel of Jesus Christ was first and foremost to go to the Jews, and then to the Gentiles. Christians owe a great debt to the Jews, for our entire spiritual heritage is derived from them. Indeed, we have been grafted into the olive tree of Israel, not the reverse (Rom. 11:11ff.).

Two Unanswered Questions: A Hypothesis

I close with two unanswered questions concerning the two covenant theory, at least unanswered for those who believe in the authority of God’s Word. I place them in the form of a hypothesis.

If the apostles and early church were called by God to bring the good news of salvation in Jesus Christ to the people of Israel — to share the person and work of the Jewish Messiah with the Jews, then when was this call abrogated? And how do we know that it was abrogated; that is, by what authority was this call to preach and evangelize terminated?

As far as I know, these two questions remain unanswered by proponents of this theology, or at least unanswered from a biblical perspective. Stephen Neill eloquently sums up the task Christians face in reaching out to the Jewish people with the good news of Jesus Christ:

Franz Rosenzweig suggested that the church has need of the synagogue, if it is to be true to its vocation. The Christian must ask for liberty to suggest to the Jew that the synagogue has need of the church, if it is to find its own true fulfillment. The suggestion must be made with the utmost humility, with a full sense both of the wrongs for which the church has been responsible in the past, and of the admiration due to the amazing faithfulness with which the Jew has clung to the God who has chosen him. All that he dare ask is that the Jew will look again at Jesus Christ, without hate and without prejudice, and consider whether there may not be things in the picture that he has so far missed.19

Sanford Mills, a Hebrew believer, eloquently summarizes the other half of the problem we are facing today in attempting to reach Jewish people with the gospel. “The sad part of it is this, that many sincere Christians who do not believe that the Gospel is to the Jew first, do not believe that the Gospel is for the Jew at all!”20

Joseph P. Gudel is a pastor in the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod and is currently a doctoral candidate at Concordia Theological Seminary.

NOTES

Eric W. Gritsch, “Luther and the Jews: Toward a Judgment of History,” in Luther and the Jews (n.p.: Lutheran Council in the USA, 1995), 9.

George Sheridan, in Mitch Glasser, “Critique of the Two Covenant Theory,” Mishkan: A Theological Forum on Jewish Evangelism 11 (1989): 2, 45. Shortly after making this comment, Sheridan was removed from his position by Rev. Larry Lewis, the President of the Southern Baptist Home Mission Board. Lewis explained Sheridan’s dismissal by saying, “We must believe in Jesus Christ and accept Him as our Lord and Savior. Someone who doesn’t hold that position shouldn’t be in an evangelistic position for the Home Mission Board” (Glasser, 68).